If ever there were an occasion for sober analysis from the political media, President Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey would be it. But in the immediate aftermath of that news, too many in the media used prominent platforms to issue sweeping conclusions — either informing their audiences that it was proof Trump was hampering an FBI investigation, or that the move was totally clean.
News of Comey’s firing broke on Tuesday evening, but before the day had ended, the editorial board of the New York Times declared with a low evidence-to-confidence ratio: “Mr. Comey was fired because he was leading an active investigation that could bring down a president.” On CNN, Jeffrey Toobin told viewers, “[Comey] was fired because he was investigating the White House.”
On the Right, some pundits did little more than shrug and note that Comey’s firing was inevitable and overdue.
Why rush to issue definitive judgments at the outset of such a fluid situation? The most useful analyses in times like these often come from those who ask questions, not make sweeping declarations. All of the conclusions reached by the aforementioned observers would be more reasonable, and helpful if posed as questions. Outside of Washington and New York, Americans tuning into cable news programming or following influential Twitter feeds rely on pundits’ interpretation of the news, rightfully or otherwise, to form their opinions.
When that news is breaking, sometimes it’s okay just to ask questions.
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
