Chris, This is exactly what I want from a journalist. A real journalist. Facts and truth. Unvarnished. Whether it's about Washington politicians and their policies or the local school board's decision to change elementary school boundaries, I just want the facts. (Dragnet music is playing in the background....) The thing with Trump is, and you hit it, he is so far outside of ANY norms that journalists seem to be afraid to tell the unvarnished truth about him. Probably afraid because they work for an editor that doesn't want to lose his or her job? I don't know. But as this blasted election season plods on (election seasons...) it is critical that any journalist worthy of that title reports all of the gory details of Trump's words and deeds. And Chris, a side note - as a former member of League of Women Voters - please vote.
You'd better get there! Fast! When he says all the crazy shit he says - that he means to do - you have to report it and stop telling yourself "that's just Trump." You are looking a monster in the face, and the way you report that is you say - repeatedly! - "That is a monster!!!"
I, too, am a recovering non-voter. Worse still, as I've previously confessed elsewhere in Substack, is that in fact, the only vote for POTUS I have ever cast was in 2016 for Donald Trump.
It will forever be my great shame.
In the Before Times, I, too, was not politically engaged. I was not particularly happy with either party and had grown cynical from a young age. Also, I, too, took for granted that there were rules; that I could afford such cynicism because things will always fall within a certain spectrum of normal. After all, we are the United effing States!! That same view governed my reality in 2016. A confluence of circumstances put me in the position of participating in the election I'd wanted least of all to participate in. But there I was. Ignorant of the reality and still generally disconnected from politics, I voted, not for Trump, but against Clinton. (I didn't want to encourage political dynasties, among other reasons.) Never could I have contemplated what was to come. It wasn't in my vocabulary. It just couldn't compute. And because of that, I could afford to abdicate my duty to participate in our self-governance. Or so I told myself.
I have since been shaken from my malaise. (But at what price?) Though I may have been a poor citizen by neglecting my obligations, I always believed, very deeply, in our foundational principles. It is not partisan to fight for truth. It is not partisan to defend your country. While Trump and his ilk have thrown out the rules, we cannot, for it's those rules and our adherence to them that defines us. It is imperative, however, to realize that the game has changed and we have different rules. It's way past time we start playing by them.
*2020 was an exception in that i was in the process of moving 4k miles during COVID and failed to register in time. I've since registered and voted, most recently the 2022 midterms.
I followed you back in your Washington Post days as The Fix through the CNN posting and honestly I did not pick up on a major shift in your position. I always got the impression that you wrote in an as unbiased way as you could, that your political opinions were largely centrist, and that you were deeply interested in how democratic government works. You also saw Trump clearly fairly early on, and at this point his supporters have to willingly put on blinders to stick with him. I'm pleased that you are here continuing this endeavor.
This answers a lot of questions I've had about you over the years. Thank you for explaining it so clearly. Mostly I get where you're coming from, but one line stopped me cold: "I never voted." What??? How could you not vote? How can you possibly understand and meet the needs of the public when you've forgone the most basic responsibility of citizenship?
It occurs to me that most of your career you covered politics as sport. But then Trump came along and, instead of playing the game, he ruined it. So now you’re stuck covering a game where half the players are following the rules while the other half are just doing whatever it takes to win.
I recall Jake Tapper saying he does not vote because he doesn't want to be forced to choose a "side" in the voting booth, which could subconsciously generate a bias that could spill over into his day job of playing it straight (my words). This makes sense to me.
If I may make a personal comment, covering the Trump Era has to have been (and still is) extremely difficult for you and other good journalists. My Dad was a City Editor for a medium large city newspaper in the 50's and 60's. He believed in the power of the press to shed light on the business of politics, as long as it was objective, fact based, truthful, and accurately sourced (from multiple sources). It meant the world to him to be accurate and fact based, and ate up his soul when he could not run a story he knew in his heart was right because the sources or information could not be independently and appropriately verified. He is probably spinning in his grave over how in today's world (besides the lack of print newspapers), uncorroborated opinion from non- "experts" qualifies as "news", and for some national publications (Gannett and Sport's Illustrated to name two recent examples - this week!), computer generated stories (AI), without fact checkers, etc., can now write and publish stories and be printed as "news". I am willing to bet it has made you question your morals and ethics once or twice (million times) to try to report a story in a way which is true to how you were taught and how news should be presented. I can only imagine how hard that has been from the way I believe my Dad would have reacted.
I have wondered if there were a way to require any broadcast outlet with "News" in its name, like Fox News, to have to meet a minimum standard of presenting actual, objective and accurate news. Perfect example is the way Fox ran with the "Terrorist on the Northern Border" story when the the American Citizen and his wife crashed their car at the Canadian Border Crossing, causing the car to catch fire and explode. Fox was not reporting "news" that day, so why should they be allowed to call themselves Fox News? They should be, at best, Fox Entertainment, or Fox Opinion, however, not Fox News.
Agree wholeheartedly. I'm fond saying 15-20% are MAGA, 15-20% are left of liberal, the other 70-80% of us just want our taxes spent wisely, protect those in need, and keep government out of our bedrooms and Healthcare decisions. We want to trust our politicians and media to tell us the truth. It's not rocket science, but our system makes that reality difficult to achieve.
Really interesting and having closely followed all the shenanigans of Republicans and Maga-hats, I agree and have the same or similar outlook on 2024. Keep digging up the facts!
I really enjoyed this piece. It has all the necessary elements, analysis, introspection, honesty and truth. I’m beginning to think that your ouster from CNN may have been much less of a tragedy than I imagined. I see much growth, maturity and progress in addition to all skills you already possessed. I’m here for the ride. It’s going to be a great one!
Sorry but Shellenberger is full of himself and totally offbase. He fundamentally misunderstands the First Amendment and what the phrase “freedom of speech” actually means, as apparently you do as well.
Try harder, “Yuri”, or whatever your name is, Comrade. If anyone should know about disinformation campaigns, it’s paid Russian trolls like you!
It is a fact, because Trump himself says it. I was addicted to cable news during Trump’s presidency, mostly CNN. I cannot watch the news at all anymore for the reasons you state. They are platforming people who are actively trying to overthrow the United States government. Look at Project 2025, with its own website and all! You too can sign up there to move America back to, I don't know, Pilgrim times. Or perhaps the very second the first Constitution was adopted. Before all the pesky rights were added. That's what they want, they have a shit-ton of cash, and a Supreme Court in the bag.
It is without question the story of our lifetimes. This is a for-real conspiracy that has been taking place for decades. I think this entire scheme is being investigated as RICO. Fani Willis is the bellwether. We will see this sweep up members of Congress, a few billionaires, advisors, and unfortunately perhaps one or more Supreme Court justices. And Leonard Leo.
I believe the DOJ will essentially charge this apparatus as a criminal organization with the shared, implicit intent of overthrowing the government. Treason, at which time Trump’s charges get upgraded as well. The individuals do not need to know one another. Some might have had advance knowledge of Jan 6. Some stirred up others to violence.
If only those in Congress would be held accountable. When this same thing happened before WWII, Congressional co-conspirators never got so much as a slap on the wrist. And now it feels like the die has been cast, protecting traitors in perpetuity. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think so.
It is exactly that, that cannot stand. We cannot have members of Congress, elected officials, standing in solidarity with traitors. Convicted seditionists. It simply is not a tenable position, any more than supporting the Confederacy when it existed.
Another great post, Chris. I only found you when you landed at CNN, however, always thought you were genuine. 2015/2016 was something nobody had seen before in politics, nobody knew how to handle the coverage, nor did most people think he’d win. I want to hear facts, the truth no matter which side of the aisle it is. Nobody is perfect, no political party is perfect but I have always wanted to be able to weigh things out in my mind and make my own decisions. If we do not have facts, how can anyone make an informed decision? Trump is/was such a liar that, of course, trying to lay out the facts, it would look as though any journalist was being critical, therefore, a Democrat. Keep up the good work.
Question: when you said you didn't vote, is that still true after 2016? Not asking how you voted but if you did. Thanks for your continued truth-based writing.
Just don’t let it be the last. I’m having to prove where I got my name in order to qualify for Real ID to cast my vote. Like we didn’t sacrifice enough to secure that privilege during the Civil Rights era. If I stop voting, I’ll lose my voice entirely. Don’t let that happen to either of us. Get out there and VOTE for the rest of your life.
This offering of yours has made me reflect on something: from your writing, I've always thought you were left of center (and was sure you voted Democrat in the last two elections [a shame you don't vote, everyone should, it's a right not universally shared and should not be treated lightly]).
The introspection on my part results in this question: just how strong are the filters (my preconceptions [my desires?]) I've been reading your words through to have arrived at such conclusions?
I may be more partisan/subjective that I like to think.
Marc, thanks for the thoughtful response. I have always thought of myself as a centrist. But, of course, how you think of yourself and how you are perceived are often to different things.
Two things: you said that the reason you wrote alot about the fat orange one is due to the fact that he was a sitting president. That may have been true at the time, but he's been clear of 1600 PA Ave for almost 3 yrs and your still are writing ALOT about him. I get it. We all get it. No need to differentiate between him being a sitting president and whatever he is at the present time: lots of titles can be bestowed upon him, but the only one that matters, "law abiding citizen, ain't one of them. The other item: you state he is a threat to our democracy. Nope, he clearly is a promise to the end of our democracy. He has said so himself, maybe not in so many words, but in what he HAS said. Someone made a comment about him before he was elected in 2016 that is spot on: he lies about the past and tells the truth about the future. So when he says all those terrible things he is going to do once he is back in the White House, believe him.
Yap, when someone tells you who they are first time, believe them.( I think late Angelo said this.) Trump has told us who he is, we better believe him.
Trump made "objectivity" an impossibility, because anything that didn't conform to his most recent lie, was a lie and a witchhunt and patently unfair. The standard was not objective truth, but whether Trump was offended, or could pretend to be offended by the assertions made... true or not.
It was the peferct fuel for polarization. It's what makes you "anti-semetic" if you think Israel should be careful not to kill Palestinian civilians. It's what makes you "islamophobic" if you think Israel has a right to defend itself. Those are just examples of the wider polarization caused by "ME-centric" thinking. Everything is judged by whether I, the speaker, agree with you or not. Any disagreement is not seen as a source of healthy discussion and evaluation, but rather, a personal affront to me punishible by whatever means I have available to cancel you, ignore you or even harm you. Such thinking leads us back to the Dark Ages where central power was erradicated and each person did what was right in their own eyes. The future does not look bright if personal freedom is the ultimate goal.
Chris, This is exactly what I want from a journalist. A real journalist. Facts and truth. Unvarnished. Whether it's about Washington politicians and their policies or the local school board's decision to change elementary school boundaries, I just want the facts. (Dragnet music is playing in the background....) The thing with Trump is, and you hit it, he is so far outside of ANY norms that journalists seem to be afraid to tell the unvarnished truth about him. Probably afraid because they work for an editor that doesn't want to lose his or her job? I don't know. But as this blasted election season plods on (election seasons...) it is critical that any journalist worthy of that title reports all of the gory details of Trump's words and deeds. And Chris, a side note - as a former member of League of Women Voters - please vote.
I am going to vote!!
And, yes, he is WAY outside the norms. I think we need a new way of covering him. I am not sure we are there for 2024.
You'd better get there! Fast! When he says all the crazy shit he says - that he means to do - you have to report it and stop telling yourself "that's just Trump." You are looking a monster in the face, and the way you report that is you say - repeatedly! - "That is a monster!!!"
I, too, am a recovering non-voter. Worse still, as I've previously confessed elsewhere in Substack, is that in fact, the only vote for POTUS I have ever cast was in 2016 for Donald Trump.
It will forever be my great shame.
In the Before Times, I, too, was not politically engaged. I was not particularly happy with either party and had grown cynical from a young age. Also, I, too, took for granted that there were rules; that I could afford such cynicism because things will always fall within a certain spectrum of normal. After all, we are the United effing States!! That same view governed my reality in 2016. A confluence of circumstances put me in the position of participating in the election I'd wanted least of all to participate in. But there I was. Ignorant of the reality and still generally disconnected from politics, I voted, not for Trump, but against Clinton. (I didn't want to encourage political dynasties, among other reasons.) Never could I have contemplated what was to come. It wasn't in my vocabulary. It just couldn't compute. And because of that, I could afford to abdicate my duty to participate in our self-governance. Or so I told myself.
I have since been shaken from my malaise. (But at what price?) Though I may have been a poor citizen by neglecting my obligations, I always believed, very deeply, in our foundational principles. It is not partisan to fight for truth. It is not partisan to defend your country. While Trump and his ilk have thrown out the rules, we cannot, for it's those rules and our adherence to them that defines us. It is imperative, however, to realize that the game has changed and we have different rules. It's way past time we start playing by them.
*2020 was an exception in that i was in the process of moving 4k miles during COVID and failed to register in time. I've since registered and voted, most recently the 2022 midterms.
I followed you back in your Washington Post days as The Fix through the CNN posting and honestly I did not pick up on a major shift in your position. I always got the impression that you wrote in an as unbiased way as you could, that your political opinions were largely centrist, and that you were deeply interested in how democratic government works. You also saw Trump clearly fairly early on, and at this point his supporters have to willingly put on blinders to stick with him. I'm pleased that you are here continuing this endeavor.
Thanks, Richard. Much appreciated.
Well said! And, well-deserved props to Chris!
Thank you for the last paragraph Chris! That took courage!
Just trying to tell the truth!
'I think they needed to cut costs. And I was a juicy line on an Excel spreadsheet. Period.' 🎯
:)
This answers a lot of questions I've had about you over the years. Thank you for explaining it so clearly. Mostly I get where you're coming from, but one line stopped me cold: "I never voted." What??? How could you not vote? How can you possibly understand and meet the needs of the public when you've forgone the most basic responsibility of citizenship?
I know, I know. I was young -- and dumb. And then I just got lazy.
It occurs to me that most of your career you covered politics as sport. But then Trump came along and, instead of playing the game, he ruined it. So now you’re stuck covering a game where half the players are following the rules while the other half are just doing whatever it takes to win.
I recall Jake Tapper saying he does not vote because he doesn't want to be forced to choose a "side" in the voting booth, which could subconsciously generate a bias that could spill over into his day job of playing it straight (my words). This makes sense to me.
Right On, Brother!
It is why we are here - keep up the great work!
Thank you!
Thanks, Mike!
If I may make a personal comment, covering the Trump Era has to have been (and still is) extremely difficult for you and other good journalists. My Dad was a City Editor for a medium large city newspaper in the 50's and 60's. He believed in the power of the press to shed light on the business of politics, as long as it was objective, fact based, truthful, and accurately sourced (from multiple sources). It meant the world to him to be accurate and fact based, and ate up his soul when he could not run a story he knew in his heart was right because the sources or information could not be independently and appropriately verified. He is probably spinning in his grave over how in today's world (besides the lack of print newspapers), uncorroborated opinion from non- "experts" qualifies as "news", and for some national publications (Gannett and Sport's Illustrated to name two recent examples - this week!), computer generated stories (AI), without fact checkers, etc., can now write and publish stories and be printed as "news". I am willing to bet it has made you question your morals and ethics once or twice (million times) to try to report a story in a way which is true to how you were taught and how news should be presented. I can only imagine how hard that has been from the way I believe my Dad would have reacted.
I have wondered if there were a way to require any broadcast outlet with "News" in its name, like Fox News, to have to meet a minimum standard of presenting actual, objective and accurate news. Perfect example is the way Fox ran with the "Terrorist on the Northern Border" story when the the American Citizen and his wife crashed their car at the Canadian Border Crossing, causing the car to catch fire and explode. Fox was not reporting "news" that day, so why should they be allowed to call themselves Fox News? They should be, at best, Fox Entertainment, or Fox Opinion, however, not Fox News.
Agree wholeheartedly. I'm fond saying 15-20% are MAGA, 15-20% are left of liberal, the other 70-80% of us just want our taxes spent wisely, protect those in need, and keep government out of our bedrooms and Healthcare decisions. We want to trust our politicians and media to tell us the truth. It's not rocket science, but our system makes that reality difficult to achieve.
Really interesting and having closely followed all the shenanigans of Republicans and Maga-hats, I agree and have the same or similar outlook on 2024. Keep digging up the facts!
Chris,
I really enjoyed this piece. It has all the necessary elements, analysis, introspection, honesty and truth. I’m beginning to think that your ouster from CNN may have been much less of a tragedy than I imagined. I see much growth, maturity and progress in addition to all skills you already possessed. I’m here for the ride. It’s going to be a great one!
Thanks, Jaye. Going to be crazy!
Is government-sponsored censorship by Democrat partisans an active threat to the American democratic experiment? https://public.substack.com/p/the-censorship-industrial-complex-c21
Sorry but Shellenberger is full of himself and totally offbase. He fundamentally misunderstands the First Amendment and what the phrase “freedom of speech” actually means, as apparently you do as well.
Try harder, “Yuri”, or whatever your name is, Comrade. If anyone should know about disinformation campaigns, it’s paid Russian trolls like you!
It is a fact, because Trump himself says it. I was addicted to cable news during Trump’s presidency, mostly CNN. I cannot watch the news at all anymore for the reasons you state. They are platforming people who are actively trying to overthrow the United States government. Look at Project 2025, with its own website and all! You too can sign up there to move America back to, I don't know, Pilgrim times. Or perhaps the very second the first Constitution was adopted. Before all the pesky rights were added. That's what they want, they have a shit-ton of cash, and a Supreme Court in the bag.
It is without question the story of our lifetimes. This is a for-real conspiracy that has been taking place for decades. I think this entire scheme is being investigated as RICO. Fani Willis is the bellwether. We will see this sweep up members of Congress, a few billionaires, advisors, and unfortunately perhaps one or more Supreme Court justices. And Leonard Leo.
I believe the DOJ will essentially charge this apparatus as a criminal organization with the shared, implicit intent of overthrowing the government. Treason, at which time Trump’s charges get upgraded as well. The individuals do not need to know one another. Some might have had advance knowledge of Jan 6. Some stirred up others to violence.
If only those in Congress would be held accountable. When this same thing happened before WWII, Congressional co-conspirators never got so much as a slap on the wrist. And now it feels like the die has been cast, protecting traitors in perpetuity. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think so.
It is exactly that, that cannot stand. We cannot have members of Congress, elected officials, standing in solidarity with traitors. Convicted seditionists. It simply is not a tenable position, any more than supporting the Confederacy when it existed.
Another great post, Chris. I only found you when you landed at CNN, however, always thought you were genuine. 2015/2016 was something nobody had seen before in politics, nobody knew how to handle the coverage, nor did most people think he’d win. I want to hear facts, the truth no matter which side of the aisle it is. Nobody is perfect, no political party is perfect but I have always wanted to be able to weigh things out in my mind and make my own decisions. If we do not have facts, how can anyone make an informed decision? Trump is/was such a liar that, of course, trying to lay out the facts, it would look as though any journalist was being critical, therefore, a Democrat. Keep up the good work.
Elaine, I am trying my absolute best to be as transparent and honest in this space as possible. I appreciate your kind words.
Question: when you said you didn't vote, is that still true after 2016? Not asking how you voted but if you did. Thanks for your continued truth-based writing.
Yes. I have never voted. 2024 will be there first time.
Just don’t let it be the last. I’m having to prove where I got my name in order to qualify for Real ID to cast my vote. Like we didn’t sacrifice enough to secure that privilege during the Civil Rights era. If I stop voting, I’ll lose my voice entirely. Don’t let that happen to either of us. Get out there and VOTE for the rest of your life.
spot on
glad to hear it - don't stop
No way! Too many lost their lives to ensure I could be a participant in American democracy. Every time I step up and accept a ballot, I remember that.
This offering of yours has made me reflect on something: from your writing, I've always thought you were left of center (and was sure you voted Democrat in the last two elections [a shame you don't vote, everyone should, it's a right not universally shared and should not be treated lightly]).
The introspection on my part results in this question: just how strong are the filters (my preconceptions [my desires?]) I've been reading your words through to have arrived at such conclusions?
I may be more partisan/subjective that I like to think.
Marc, thanks for the thoughtful response. I have always thought of myself as a centrist. But, of course, how you think of yourself and how you are perceived are often to different things.
Two things: you said that the reason you wrote alot about the fat orange one is due to the fact that he was a sitting president. That may have been true at the time, but he's been clear of 1600 PA Ave for almost 3 yrs and your still are writing ALOT about him. I get it. We all get it. No need to differentiate between him being a sitting president and whatever he is at the present time: lots of titles can be bestowed upon him, but the only one that matters, "law abiding citizen, ain't one of them. The other item: you state he is a threat to our democracy. Nope, he clearly is a promise to the end of our democracy. He has said so himself, maybe not in so many words, but in what he HAS said. Someone made a comment about him before he was elected in 2016 that is spot on: he lies about the past and tells the truth about the future. So when he says all those terrible things he is going to do once he is back in the White House, believe him.
Yap, when someone tells you who they are first time, believe them.( I think late Angelo said this.) Trump has told us who he is, we better believe him.
Trump made "objectivity" an impossibility, because anything that didn't conform to his most recent lie, was a lie and a witchhunt and patently unfair. The standard was not objective truth, but whether Trump was offended, or could pretend to be offended by the assertions made... true or not.
It was the peferct fuel for polarization. It's what makes you "anti-semetic" if you think Israel should be careful not to kill Palestinian civilians. It's what makes you "islamophobic" if you think Israel has a right to defend itself. Those are just examples of the wider polarization caused by "ME-centric" thinking. Everything is judged by whether I, the speaker, agree with you or not. Any disagreement is not seen as a source of healthy discussion and evaluation, but rather, a personal affront to me punishible by whatever means I have available to cancel you, ignore you or even harm you. Such thinking leads us back to the Dark Ages where central power was erradicated and each person did what was right in their own eyes. The future does not look bright if personal freedom is the ultimate goal.