On Sunday's Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz welcomed CBS congressional correspondent Chip Reid to the program, along with columnist and GU professor Steve Roberts and Lynne Sweet, Washington bureau chief for the Chicago Sun-Times to discuss the Obama-mania phenomenon, and whether it was the press' job to declare Hillary Clinton's campaign dead. Reid, who left NBC for CBS in late August, noted an interesting difference between his job at the two networks: Cable.

REID: ...I think we really all have to be cautious here. I think for us to start assuming that Obama's got the numbers here is just crazy. We have been proven wrong so many times before. Why run the risk of making fools of ourselves? And it's not our job. I mean, my job is not to predict.

KURTZ: Are people less cautious when they have to go on cable 24 hours a day?

REID: I think so. Exactly. Exactly...I see a different world now. When I was at NBC, and I was constantly on the edge of my seat because I knew I could be called to do a live shot on MSNBC at any moment, I had to listen to the punditry all the time. At CBS we don't have cable, so it's kind of a soft hum in the background, but I ignore it for the most part. So I focus on the story instead of punditry.

That could be taken as a swipe at ye olde former employer, but Reid's comment speaks not only to the need to go on cable at any moment but also to the overall warp-speed of the news cycle, where everyone feels the pressure to get a definitive statement down on whatever event happens right at that moment, be it blog, newsweekly, newspaper, the AP, cable news channel, news site or Chris Cillizza (sample Cillizza headline: "GOP Debate: Domestic Issues Dominate First Hour," sent out eleven minutes after that first hour). This, of course, is a separate issue from whether the media is treating Clinton and Obama fairly and equally and holding them to the same standard, which was Kurtz's main question. But it's not quite right for Reid to claim that his job is not to predict — his job is to collect, process and present data in a meaningful manner for his audience, and part of that includes putting it in practical terms. So, for example, the question: "Based on the current delegate counts and the polls in upcoming states, would it be possible for Hillary Clinton to come out ahead for pledged delegates?" is a reasonable one, because it pulls together existing data in a way that presents a snapshot of where the race currently is, and saying that no, it's unlikely that Clinton could pull ahead now based solely on pledged delegates is consistent with the math, the polls and the remaining numbers. Unlikely does not mean impossible (a la Mike Huckabee), and as long as that distinction is made I think that fact-and-analysis-based predictions have their place in election coverage.

Speaking of the facts, the idea is to base your lede on them, not vice versa. For that, Charlie Gibson received a well-deserved smack on the wrist from the panel:

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS: Hillary Clinton took the gloves off today and unleashed a bare-knuckles attack on Barack Obama, criticizing him in more direct and specific terms than we've been hearing.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You have heard plenty of promises from plenty of people in plenty of speeches, but speeches don't put food on the table or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night.

Ooh, smackdown! I guess "plenty of promises from plenty of people" is the new "direct and specific." That's just ridiculous. Howie's panel agreed. Probably Charlie was feeling down, and the claws came out.

Transcript: Reliable Sources, Feb. 17, 2008 [CNN]

Related:
Is Obama Using Sexist Language? [ABC's Political Punch]