From this site and social media, it is my perception that many people want to hear and read solely info and opinions that conform to and/or affirm their overall views, and that people with that preference push back in various ways against other content . I think there has formed a co-dependency in the era of narrowcasting. Networks or outlets tailored to a particular segment know what to feed that segment, and they face complaints when they deviate from form. These factors make it tricky to strike the balance you address. I appreciate your efforts to do so. Many of us still enjoy a rigorous exchange of dissenting views.
100%. I'd love it if politicians would craft detailed position papers on the various topics and people would read them - never gonna happen. People complain that politicians lie but won't vote for them if they tell the truth. The problem isn't the media or the politicians - it's the voters/customers. They rationally respond to what voters actually do vs what they claim to care about.
You hit the nail on the head! What would happen to the politician who said 'look, the deficit is in the trillions because you demanded a bunch of stuff and didn't want to actually pay for it. That simply must end. And no, there's not enough rich people to pay it off so you'll almost all have to chip in.' Nobody knows cause nobody who said that ever got elected....
My Dad explained it to me in the 1984 election - Mondale told everyone he would raise their taxes (truth) and he lost 49 states.
I work in the benefits space and tell clients everyday that we all know how to fix Social Security but there are no votes in the truth. So, politicians will wait until there are no other options, say no one saw it coming and then fix it with much more draconian and expensive solutions than we could do by being honest.
I think another interesting part of this is: who reads political coverage? For the most part, it's political junkies, who, as a general rule, have their minds made up about the issues. Most people get interested in politics because they have a certain point of view. And political junkies will always be interested in whether their "team" (for lack of a better word) is winning. They're like sports junkies in that way. So, I totally understand the need for horse-race coverage, even though yes, we'd probably have a better world with more focus on the issues.
One of the things I've always found fascinating is that it's usually political partisans—the ones who have their minds made up—who push for more scandal and personality-related coverage (of the other side, of course), instead of issue-related coverage, which one would think would be their main focus, as that's why they're partisans. And I guess that's because they believe that's how elections are won, maybe because they read so much MSM horse race stuff. It's certainly possible they would do better trying to convince people of their point of view, instead of just (as happens all too often) insulting anyone who disagrees. Because once you get people on your side, they excuse all sorts of stuff in candidates (Trump is the best example of this).
Some thoughts. How many of the folks whose interest is primarily the horse race actually work for a candidate or vote VERSUS how many who care about the issues and positions of candidates? And of the 2 types of candidates, which are the more valuable leaders? I also subscribe to a substack or two that discuss the hows and whys of issues, not horse races. For me, that's my greater interest. The MTGs only want to get attention and are terrible representatives. Agree with them or not, the Jaime Raskins and Liz Cheneys of the world add actual value to the conversation and provide better governance. Porn vs meaningful relationship. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So given that journalism is a business and people tend to flock to stories about big personalities, conflict and fighting, aren’t journalists incentivized to keep this chaos going? I have tried to be objective about complaints that the media is bias and reports a lot more on Biden’s negatives (and Harris’ going forward), while Trump’s gaffes, shortcomings and truly dangerous rantings are ignored or at best lightly reported on. But it’s hard to ignore the reality that journalists and the business of journalism will benefit more through clicks and likes and views from a Trump presidency than a Harris one. So, it seems naive then to think that there is not a bias in the media, even if it is not acknowledged out loud.
I find it so, so odd that people claim that the media “doesn’t report on Trump’s antics” when I see reports on his antics every damn day. I have an NYT subscription, a WaPo subscription, a Boston Globe subscription… these articles come directly to my inbox even! Is the complaint really just that these orgs don’t write about it with the immature snark of the very online Twitter Intelligentsia or that your news is only coming from your algorithm/feed and you can’t be bothered to visit the home page of a news site?
While reporting on chaos arguably amplifies it, most news is based on conflict and drama. I don't see a pro-Trump bias this time, even though he might be better for business. (A Trump presidency also might be terrible for press freedom.) If anything, the media is (currently) writing Trump off, which isn't really reflected on the numbers.
Now, does social media amplify conflict? That's undeniable. They admit it! But that's just doing what the media has traditionally done, on steroids.
I don't think you're wrong, but I do think this might be a symptom of late stage capitalism where everything has to hit a certain amount of ROI, etc. I've spent a lot of my career in vain trying to convince people that the old quote, "not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." is right. I do hope that those few people who take the time to read about climate change instead of clicking on the MTG headline may just be the minority who work towards changing things for the good. One thing that people like Chris Cillizza could do is use their larger influence to highlight those who are taking deeper dives find a larger audience. I'm thinking of people like Jason Garcia here in Florida who does some amazing journalism. https://jasongarcia.substack.com/
You can find the horse race reporting interesting (I do), but also hunger for more policy analysis, which I read voraciously. If people aren't reading the policy analysis it is either because it isn't being presented in a manner that engages people, or they just don't care enough. (Personally, I find it largely well done.)
If it is the latter, then I fear for our democracy. This goes far beyond the media and its role. It is a reflection of a society that complains about their congressperson but votes to re-elect them time and again. That tells those same congresspeople to take their government hands off their Social Security.
The Roman republic died of apathy. That's a lesson we should learn quickly, but that would require reading.
I think of our earliest ancestors—the ones whose imaginations first began to ponder the existential—and how they sat in dark caves with fires burning at the mouths to protect them—and how they turned to their most charismatic kinfolk and asked, "Can you tell us a story?" And I also smile thinking of my contemporaries who romantically/wonkedly think policy papers are stories.
Couldn’t agree more. And those stories our ancestors told were about heroes who fought the bear or the lion and won. Or, as civilization advanced across Western cultures, about the machinations of the gods. The Romans knew how to appease the masses: give them gladiators (and the really successful gladiators became celebrities). Move to the Middle Ages, and it was jousting, and stories about “heroic” knights defeating the “bad” knights. Or stories about the Crusades. Granted, the common folk of these times couldn’t do anything to affect policy, such as onerous taxation (although I’m sure they grumbled about it). But throughout the ages, people have loved stories about personalities, the good guys (i.e., us) versus the bad guys (i.e., them), and it hasn’t changed one bit.
First off, no spoiler alert about wrestling? How dare you sir!!! Second, hard and fast when discussing the seedy side of the internet is top tier writing.
Chris, this is an interesting comparison to me, as I said to someone last week "We could put pornography on TV 24/7, and many people would be unable to turn away, but should we?"
I read an interesting article which in case you haven't seen it I will link below. It was about the ESPN show First Take and how they designed a show essentially that people couldn't turn away from. They did it deliberately and methodically. I found it both fascinating and repulsive to read.
I am a writer as well and am very familiar with the corporate need to drive clicks. At my own site, which I have monetized and is now my main source of income, I feel considerably less beholden to that, though, yes, I still need to build subscribers.
Personally, I love politics, so I find the horse race (as well as the insider stuff) very interesting. I also find the extended policy pieces interesting. But I can make a comparison where I don't find it interesting.
I follow the NBA closely, and what sites like The Athletic, ESPN, and others do is emphasize the horse race via "power rankings." Who's up? Who's down? I find this to be the most boring writing in sports and rarely look at it. You can be guaranteed that THE SECOND a championship is won in any sport, publishers immediately posting odds for every team for the following season. It's the same idea and honestly pretty sad.
With your own site now, you can follow your own compass more so than you could in the past. Yes, there is still the desire to see that articles have been widely read or that they generate lots of comments. To me, however, that's not really the measuring stick for good writing or success. It's writing things that are informative and provide readers with value. The stories YOU like. What I always say is I write about things that are interesting to me and hope that they will be interesting to other people as well. Corporate writing is the reverse of that.
Yes, one needs to throw red meat to the masses occasionally. But the joy of writing for yourself is that you can decide when you do it and how you do it. Mainstream publications need to just keep throwing out red meat.
Yes, and if I have one request of Chris, is to write more off the beaten track stories. I liked the interview about the Chicago mayor! Fascinating stuff, about a subject I knew nothing about.
"Dumb things Trump said in a speech" is not something I ever want to read.
Mmmmmm....breakfast for dinner!! (a big ol' stack o' pancakes, drenched in syrup!). Well articulated, Chris. I think in my gut I already knew all of this, but I appreciate your ability to explain it in a way that makes sense. I can't disagree with any of your thesis. Thanks!
I have had this same thought over the years. I call it the difference between what we like and what we value. We value (supposedly) high moral standards and self discipline but we like....well...as u stated..porn is a billion dollar industry..
As Al Gore would say, this is an inconvenient truth.
VERY tricky Cillizza, very very tricky. Stick in the words ONLINE PORN and watch the views jump up. I see what you did there...and I like it.
He's going to make a lot of people come...
....to his website. They are going to want to read the article.
This piece may make his record for most clicked.
Now I'm wondering if anybody out there has ever written any CC 'slash' fiction.
'I woke up and saw him sitting on the side of the bed looking at me. He was wearing nothing but a pair of Zenni eyeglasses and a rakish grin.
"I'm going to tell you the 27 craziest things you said last night when I was rocking your world," he said.'
From this site and social media, it is my perception that many people want to hear and read solely info and opinions that conform to and/or affirm their overall views, and that people with that preference push back in various ways against other content . I think there has formed a co-dependency in the era of narrowcasting. Networks or outlets tailored to a particular segment know what to feed that segment, and they face complaints when they deviate from form. These factors make it tricky to strike the balance you address. I appreciate your efforts to do so. Many of us still enjoy a rigorous exchange of dissenting views.
100%. I'd love it if politicians would craft detailed position papers on the various topics and people would read them - never gonna happen. People complain that politicians lie but won't vote for them if they tell the truth. The problem isn't the media or the politicians - it's the voters/customers. They rationally respond to what voters actually do vs what they claim to care about.
You hit the nail on the head! What would happen to the politician who said 'look, the deficit is in the trillions because you demanded a bunch of stuff and didn't want to actually pay for it. That simply must end. And no, there's not enough rich people to pay it off so you'll almost all have to chip in.' Nobody knows cause nobody who said that ever got elected....
My Dad explained it to me in the 1984 election - Mondale told everyone he would raise their taxes (truth) and he lost 49 states.
I work in the benefits space and tell clients everyday that we all know how to fix Social Security but there are no votes in the truth. So, politicians will wait until there are no other options, say no one saw it coming and then fix it with much more draconian and expensive solutions than we could do by being honest.
Parker: Your Mondale reference reminded me of this 40-year-old joke from Dennis Miller on Saturday Night Live:
"Walter Mondale got three electoral votes. Hey, that's only three more than I got, and I didn't even run!"
I think another interesting part of this is: who reads political coverage? For the most part, it's political junkies, who, as a general rule, have their minds made up about the issues. Most people get interested in politics because they have a certain point of view. And political junkies will always be interested in whether their "team" (for lack of a better word) is winning. They're like sports junkies in that way. So, I totally understand the need for horse-race coverage, even though yes, we'd probably have a better world with more focus on the issues.
One of the things I've always found fascinating is that it's usually political partisans—the ones who have their minds made up—who push for more scandal and personality-related coverage (of the other side, of course), instead of issue-related coverage, which one would think would be their main focus, as that's why they're partisans. And I guess that's because they believe that's how elections are won, maybe because they read so much MSM horse race stuff. It's certainly possible they would do better trying to convince people of their point of view, instead of just (as happens all too often) insulting anyone who disagrees. Because once you get people on your side, they excuse all sorts of stuff in candidates (Trump is the best example of this).
Well, does he smell?
I'd say the overwhelming school of thought is that he does. Whether its just his nature, or the actual diaper stench, I'm going with YES.
Yes, with his nose. 😀
Some thoughts. How many of the folks whose interest is primarily the horse race actually work for a candidate or vote VERSUS how many who care about the issues and positions of candidates? And of the 2 types of candidates, which are the more valuable leaders? I also subscribe to a substack or two that discuss the hows and whys of issues, not horse races. For me, that's my greater interest. The MTGs only want to get attention and are terrible representatives. Agree with them or not, the Jaime Raskins and Liz Cheneys of the world add actual value to the conversation and provide better governance. Porn vs meaningful relationship. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Is it okay to open this article at work? :-)
So given that journalism is a business and people tend to flock to stories about big personalities, conflict and fighting, aren’t journalists incentivized to keep this chaos going? I have tried to be objective about complaints that the media is bias and reports a lot more on Biden’s negatives (and Harris’ going forward), while Trump’s gaffes, shortcomings and truly dangerous rantings are ignored or at best lightly reported on. But it’s hard to ignore the reality that journalists and the business of journalism will benefit more through clicks and likes and views from a Trump presidency than a Harris one. So, it seems naive then to think that there is not a bias in the media, even if it is not acknowledged out loud.
I find it so, so odd that people claim that the media “doesn’t report on Trump’s antics” when I see reports on his antics every damn day. I have an NYT subscription, a WaPo subscription, a Boston Globe subscription… these articles come directly to my inbox even! Is the complaint really just that these orgs don’t write about it with the immature snark of the very online Twitter Intelligentsia or that your news is only coming from your algorithm/feed and you can’t be bothered to visit the home page of a news site?
While reporting on chaos arguably amplifies it, most news is based on conflict and drama. I don't see a pro-Trump bias this time, even though he might be better for business. (A Trump presidency also might be terrible for press freedom.) If anything, the media is (currently) writing Trump off, which isn't really reflected on the numbers.
Now, does social media amplify conflict? That's undeniable. They admit it! But that's just doing what the media has traditionally done, on steroids.
I don't think you're wrong, but I do think this might be a symptom of late stage capitalism where everything has to hit a certain amount of ROI, etc. I've spent a lot of my career in vain trying to convince people that the old quote, "not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." is right. I do hope that those few people who take the time to read about climate change instead of clicking on the MTG headline may just be the minority who work towards changing things for the good. One thing that people like Chris Cillizza could do is use their larger influence to highlight those who are taking deeper dives find a larger audience. I'm thinking of people like Jason Garcia here in Florida who does some amazing journalism. https://jasongarcia.substack.com/
You can find the horse race reporting interesting (I do), but also hunger for more policy analysis, which I read voraciously. If people aren't reading the policy analysis it is either because it isn't being presented in a manner that engages people, or they just don't care enough. (Personally, I find it largely well done.)
If it is the latter, then I fear for our democracy. This goes far beyond the media and its role. It is a reflection of a society that complains about their congressperson but votes to re-elect them time and again. That tells those same congresspeople to take their government hands off their Social Security.
The Roman republic died of apathy. That's a lesson we should learn quickly, but that would require reading.
I think of our earliest ancestors—the ones whose imaginations first began to ponder the existential—and how they sat in dark caves with fires burning at the mouths to protect them—and how they turned to their most charismatic kinfolk and asked, "Can you tell us a story?" And I also smile thinking of my contemporaries who romantically/wonkedly think policy papers are stories.
Couldn’t agree more. And those stories our ancestors told were about heroes who fought the bear or the lion and won. Or, as civilization advanced across Western cultures, about the machinations of the gods. The Romans knew how to appease the masses: give them gladiators (and the really successful gladiators became celebrities). Move to the Middle Ages, and it was jousting, and stories about “heroic” knights defeating the “bad” knights. Or stories about the Crusades. Granted, the common folk of these times couldn’t do anything to affect policy, such as onerous taxation (although I’m sure they grumbled about it). But throughout the ages, people have loved stories about personalities, the good guys (i.e., us) versus the bad guys (i.e., them), and it hasn’t changed one bit.
First off, no spoiler alert about wrestling? How dare you sir!!! Second, hard and fast when discussing the seedy side of the internet is top tier writing.
Chris, this is an interesting comparison to me, as I said to someone last week "We could put pornography on TV 24/7, and many people would be unable to turn away, but should we?"
I read an interesting article which in case you haven't seen it I will link below. It was about the ESPN show First Take and how they designed a show essentially that people couldn't turn away from. They did it deliberately and methodically. I found it both fascinating and repulsive to read.
I am a writer as well and am very familiar with the corporate need to drive clicks. At my own site, which I have monetized and is now my main source of income, I feel considerably less beholden to that, though, yes, I still need to build subscribers.
Personally, I love politics, so I find the horse race (as well as the insider stuff) very interesting. I also find the extended policy pieces interesting. But I can make a comparison where I don't find it interesting.
I follow the NBA closely, and what sites like The Athletic, ESPN, and others do is emphasize the horse race via "power rankings." Who's up? Who's down? I find this to be the most boring writing in sports and rarely look at it. You can be guaranteed that THE SECOND a championship is won in any sport, publishers immediately posting odds for every team for the following season. It's the same idea and honestly pretty sad.
With your own site now, you can follow your own compass more so than you could in the past. Yes, there is still the desire to see that articles have been widely read or that they generate lots of comments. To me, however, that's not really the measuring stick for good writing or success. It's writing things that are informative and provide readers with value. The stories YOU like. What I always say is I write about things that are interesting to me and hope that they will be interesting to other people as well. Corporate writing is the reverse of that.
Yes, one needs to throw red meat to the masses occasionally. But the joy of writing for yourself is that you can decide when you do it and how you do it. Mainstream publications need to just keep throwing out red meat.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4681066/2023/07/12/first-take-espn-stephen-a-smith-skip-bayless/
Yes, and if I have one request of Chris, is to write more off the beaten track stories. I liked the interview about the Chicago mayor! Fascinating stuff, about a subject I knew nothing about.
"Dumb things Trump said in a speech" is not something I ever want to read.
Mmmmmm....breakfast for dinner!! (a big ol' stack o' pancakes, drenched in syrup!). Well articulated, Chris. I think in my gut I already knew all of this, but I appreciate your ability to explain it in a way that makes sense. I can't disagree with any of your thesis. Thanks!
I have had this same thought over the years. I call it the difference between what we like and what we value. We value (supposedly) high moral standards and self discipline but we like....well...as u stated..porn is a billion dollar industry..