Regular viewers of UNC-TV’s “Front Row with Marc Rotterman” might remember a short diatribe from a recent episode. (You’ll find it at the 22-minute mark here.) I chided people who spend too much time fretting about the circumstances surrounding media outlets “calling” an election.

Editors at the New York Sun now tackle a similar topic.

Of all the claims that have been made in this election, the most astounding is the idea that the proper authority to certify the winner — and dispose of all objections — is the press. That would be the same press that proved to be so inaccurate in respect of what would happen in the past two elections. It is now in high dudgeon over the fact that millions of Americans lack for confidence in its decision to call the race for Mr. Biden.

What vainglory. “Day by day,” the Washington Post editorializes this morning, “President Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of a free and fair election grow more brazen.” Notice the en passant nature of its reference to the election being free and fair. It dasn’t acknowledge even a possibility that determining the freeness and fairness of the blasted election is the point of all the challenges and litigation.

It is not our intention here to take sides in this litigation. We stated our position in the early hours of November 4, after Vice President Biden had declared he was on track to win the election and President Trump had cried “fraud.” It was, we suggested, “a moment to stay calm and take a careful look at the numbers and to stick to the law.” Why would the country be irreparably harmed by waiting for official results as prescribed by law?

We don’t mind saying that it doesn’t look good for Mr. Trump. So far a breakthrough ruling has eluded his camp in any court. …

… It was not a Republican but rather a Democrat, Hillary Clinton, who suggested that if the race turned out to be tight, “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.”

Just for the record, we refrained from criticizing Mrs. Clinton on that head.