Could television journalists please banish to the dustbin the mindless words and phrases that are poisoning public discussion of politics? For example, “flip-flop” is used to disparage candidates for having changed their positions on particular issues. But do we really want to elect candidates with fixed ideas who decline to change when the situation and the evidence before them changes?

Sure, voters want to be able to judge a candidate’s basic character, philosophy and potential style of governing and it is legitimate to weigh the apparent reasons for the change. But I have yet to hear any of the TV people note that we’d be damned fools if we demand that under no circumstances should the candidate bend. That kind of righteous stiff-neckedness would doom a presidency to impotence in the political give and take. The other alternative is that the country would have what it already has, a White House stuck in the same wrong-headed mode no matter what new information or circumstance comes along. Emerson had it right: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Another phrase afoot is “the race card.” Obama notes in a speech that he happens to be black, which is kind of obvious to anybody with two eyes, and the McCain people complain that he is employing the race card. What in blazes does that mean? That Obama should never mention his race because when he does he seems to be criticizing his opponent for noticing it, too? The television people eagerly jumped onto the race card phrase and bandied it about for days on end, without stopping to explain its pertinence to reality or the issues at hand. In the end, it just looked like a silly, pointless card game when the real game was out on the street where voters were losing jobs and houses and unable to pay for food and gas. Do the TV people really believe that most Americans give a damn about the color of the candidate’s skin, when all they want is somebody to extend a hand and help solve their problems?

“Elite” is yet another label being bandied about. It’s most often applied, with a sneer, to Obama. It’s true, the man is cool, well-educated, and speaks without grunting, but why should any of that be considered a barrier to high office? Does the American voter really want an ill-educated President, somebody apparently unfamiliar with the English language? (Oh, wait, maybe we already have one of those.)

It’s too easy to fall into the habit of employing this shorthand instead of finding ways to convey to viewers the facts and sense behind the news. What’s needed is analysis, not knee-jerk slogan-mongering.

Often what’s going on is that political operators, usually Republicans, are the ones who come up with these sneering catch words. TV reporters and commentators allow themselves to become part of the campaign by endlessly repeating them. Some of the commentators are political figures themselves and not journalists first and foremost. For them this is not a problem: It’s what they want to do, how they serve their party. But it’s a perversion of journalism.

I worry about people who call themselves television journalists, but do almost no original reporting. For example, it’s plain lousy journalism to flash on the screen a sound bite from one candidate and follow it with a sound bite from another, without making the effort to say whether one or the other is shading the truth. Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown takes a stab at it, though he leans so far in Obama’s favor it’s hard for him to maintain credibility. When Olbermann pounces on a truth, unfortunately the near-ecstatic tone of the pounce also diminishes the effect of what he has to say. Whatever happened to calm, sweet reason, without the glee? Wouldn’t that be more persuasive?