Position Paper 1: Pundits

Under the Desk News

The way people consume political news has changed dramatically as social media has grown. With online news behind paywalls and traditional news increasingly requiring paid subscriptions, many people now turn to platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube to stay informed. Short-form videos can make complicated stories easier to understand while helping viewers avoid news overload. One recognizable creator in this new form of journalism is Vitus “V” Spehar, creator of Under the Desk News. Spehar became known for literally reporting from underneath a desk, but the account has grown into a major source of political and cultural news with millions of followers, they have even been named one of Times 100 most influential creators. Spehar generally bases their content on established reporting and primary sources, then adds personality, commentary, and interpretation. This approach makes complicated political news more accessible, while sometimes blurring the line between factual reporting and personal interpretation.

Click image for video

Reporting First, Commentary Second

Despite the casual presentation of Under the Desk News, Spehar has described a structured process for researching stories. In an interview with Nieman Journalism Lab, Spehar explained that they monitor around a dozen national and local news organizations, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Politico, and Axios. When possible, Spehar also goes directly to primary sources, such as Supreme Court opinions or documents released by the White House, and typically compares reporting from multiple outlets before covering a story.

This process is important when considering whether political punditry provides anything of substance. Spehar is often not the journalist who originally uncovered the information being discussed. Under the Desk News instead frequently works as an aggregator, taking reporting from journalists and primary documents and translating it into language that works for a short-form social media audience. Spehar has also said they generally avoid rushing to cover breaking news unless it involves a subject they know particularly well, giving developing stories time for more information to emerge.

The commentary comes after those facts have been gathered. Spehar reacts to stories, uses humor, explains why something matters, and offers opinions about political developments. A government document or court ruling may establish what happened, but explaining what that development could mean requires interpretation. Predicting what may happen because of it goes even further. Under the Desk News often moves between these categories within the same video, making it important for viewers to recognize where reporting ends and analysis begins.

Making News Easier to Consume

Spehar's personality is also part of what makes Under the Desk News successful. One of the account's most recognizable traditions is when they wears a banana shirt; that means that they is only reporting good news. The tradition began while Spehar was recovering from surgery and needed comfortable button-up shirts. Their wife found a banana-print pajama shirt, and Spehar decided that while wearing it they would focus only on positive stories. Viewers enjoyed it enough that the banana shirt became a recurring feature.

The banana shirt may seem unrelated to political reporting, but it represents an important part of Spehar's approach. News can be exhausting, especially when social media creates a constant stream of political conflict, wars, crime, and other negative stories. By creating recognizable traditions and explaining stories conversationally, Spehar makes following current events feel less overwhelming without necessarily removing the substance.

That approach was also visible during the 2024 presidential election. On election night, Spehar hosted a pizza party livestream that offered an alternative to traditional network coverage. Rather than focusing solely on predictions, Spehar discussed results as they became available and helped viewers understand what the incoming information meant.

There is an important difference between predicting an outcome and interpreting reliable information as it becomes available. Election results provide data, but most viewers do not have the time or expertise to determine what every state call or shift in voting patterns means. Political punditry can provide something substantive when a commentator uses accurate information to give those numbers context instead of simply trying to predict the future.

When Interpretation Complicates the Story

Even when the underlying facts are accurate, interpretation can affect how an audience understands a story. Spehar's 2025 dispute with NPR provides a useful example. After participating in an NPR interview about news influencers, Spehar publicly criticized how the interview had been conducted and edited, arguing that important context had been removed.

NPR's public editor later reviewed the raw interview, emails, and final broadcast. The investigation agreed that one edit removed useful context from Spehar's explanation of the Under the Desk format. However, it did not support every part of Spehar's characterization of the experience. The complete record presented a more complicated picture.

The disagreement demonstrates an important distinction between factual accuracy and interpretation. Someone can begin with real events and accurate information but reach a conclusion that another person examining the same evidence may not share. That does not necessarily mean the commentary is intentionally misleading. It does mean audiences should recognize when they are hearing verified information and when they are hearing someone's interpretation of that information.

Spehar has also acknowledged that mistakes happen. They have described removing inaccurate videos, correcting information, and directly telling viewers when they have gotten something wrong. For an independent creator without the editorial structure of a large newsroom, being willing to make those corrections is an important part of maintaining credibility.

More Than a Hot Take

Under the Desk News demonstrates that political punditry does not have to appear “out of thin air.” Spehar's commentary is generally built on information that can be traced to established reporting, primary documents, and multiple sources. The value Spehar adds is not necessarily discovering every story first or correctly predicting what will happen next. Instead, it is taking that information, making it understandable, and explaining why it may matter.

That does not mean viewers should automatically accept every interpretation Spehar offers. The combination of factual reporting and personal commentary makes media literacy even more important. Audiences need to distinguish between what is known, what the available evidence suggests, and what a commentator believes that evidence means.

Under the Desk News may not look like traditional political journalism, with its TikTok videos, election-night livestreams, reporting from the floor, and the occasional banana-covered shirt. However, underneath the personality is a process based largely on sourcing and verification. Spehar's commentary gives those facts context and makes them easier to consume, but the facts remain the foundation. In an online environment filled with hot takes, that foundation may be what matters most.