Fallows begs the press to mostly ignore Gingrich because "the chance of Newt Gingrich becoming the 45th President of the United States is zero":
[T]he press faces a chance to learn from the lessons of the Trump bubble. Each of these men, Gingrich and Trump, is a familiar national figure; neither of them will be the Republican nominee. Because of celebrity and personal pizzazz, they naturally are more tempting to cover than other longshots who are also not going to win the nomination. But if Gingrich coverage turns into Carnival Barkers Part Deux, we'll end up giving headline attention to disputes that have more to do with reality-show celebrity than with how Republicans will choose their issues and their candidate. The trick of balance, therefore, is to be fair to Gingrich and his arguments as long as he is in the race, much as should be the case with Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and others, while not letting what happened with Trump happen again.
Oy. When will the meta-journalism hand-wringing stop? Gingrich has been fascinating and landscape-altering these past few days. His candidacy has ripped open a real rift within the party. But we should all earnestly be above reporting on this? Why do journalists send so much energy telling other journalists what they should not cover?
The Dish 