Because you think politics is a game. That's the answer. Because you don't see how the fun little horse race stuff you like to write about has very, very real effects on people's lives. It's always been a game to you because you do not have an ounce of empathy for another living person whose name isn't Chris Cillizza. While people were scared, you were too busy giggling to yourself and writing "Why Donald Trump is the Michael Jordan of nicknames!" or "The 10 wackiest lines from Trump's most recent speech" where half of the entries are just you going, "Um.... no," "Mitch McConnell, call your office," and "[narrator voice]."
You have always been what's wrong with US political media, Chris. You still are.
I'm a political junkie but professionally I'm a film critic. My definition of "objectivity" is that you should be able to read one of my reviews (which, of course, is my OPINION) and be able to disagree with it yet still get sufficient information to let you know if you would want to see the movie. I think the notion of newspeople not voting -- John Chancellor, I believe, was another -- is a pointless, empty gesture. Don't campaign for a candidate or contribute to them, but in the voting booth you're a citizen, and not a journalist. And no one need know who you voted for.
I've always been a big fan of yours, but I could never get behind your not voting stance. As a reporter, I always found I was the most informed. I could and do have my own opinions but could still report and ask questions to both sides and give the reader the best chance to make an informed decision.
And Chris, there are probably local elections in 2023 too. Vote!
Agreed. As a retired reporter, where I spent my career in large and small markets, not voting on the artificial altar of ``objectivity’’ always struck me with an air of arrogance. I was trained to accurately report the facts, fearlessly root out more facts, pursue and report the truth. Journalism is not a religious order. Instead, there’s a strong case to be made that reporters and editors, having a ringside seat to events, are better qualified than most to cast a ballot. Welcome to your long overdue exercise of American citizenship, Chris.
Chris, I agree with your article. NEWS at every level is NOT objective. Take local news for instance. Almost every local news broadcast begins with the local crime reports, making people think that locally crime is rampant. In reality crime, especially violent crime has decreased over the decades. However, it catches people's eyes, ears and ultimately their pocketbooks. Just the way stories are posted on national broadcasts shows the editor's bias as to what they consider to be most important. Don't get me started with digital news, especially controversial or in some cases downright wrong stories. More advertisements show up when a thread that is controversial takes over on digital platforms. All that being said, I will continue to vote, because I believe that "if you don't vote, don't complain about the outcome!"
This is simply junk. Besides national/state level elections there are so many more which are utterly and completely disconnected from your employment. Your approach is unbelievably juvenile.
I too had a "policy" of not voting. I was on active duty in the U.S. Army. I believed that regardless of who was the Commander in Chief, it was my duty to follow. Regardless of party. And therefore, to show no bias, I never voted. Then, after I retired, I started voting. And will continue. It is now my duty as a citizen. To try to improve this nation.
Before I step out on a limb here, some background: I subscribed to the daily CNN newsletters in your’s and Stelter’s day. At the same time I subscribed to the Dispatch. I sub NYT. I read NPR’s home page daily.
I usually trust the individuals but I can also often see a lean this way or that; which doesn’t bother me if the reporter is honest about it.
Where I have more concern is WHAT gets covered -and watch out! 3rd rail here I come! Such as LGBTQ and more specifically trans issues. I see multiple articles, often daily, yet I don’t think proportionally trans people represent a large segment of our population. Many aspects of this issue are still up for debate. But if you simply consider the number of articles about transgender issues, you’d think it was much bigger. I see this as an editorial issue; not individual reporters. And that’s just one issue and given its notoriety I’m reluctant to even share this. I’m NOT transphobic, just confused about it.
I appreciate your transparency here. Good luck with your Substack.
Voting has nothing to do with journalism or vice versa. Journalism has everything to do with reporting the facts - and not which ones you believe, which is where the rubber meets the road. Where news reporting goes off the rails is when/where you say, "Every story has 3 sides & the truth is somehwere in the middle". The bias in reporting is exactly how people frame & shape their opinions of the news.
It is a kinda' Catch-22 that makes the truth an elusive target & objectivity a matter of your own bias.
Going back to your parenting column, and riding in car w teens. Now I know I wasn’t stern enough to do the right things because wanted to just get along w the kidlings. But I’m telling you, follow the rule, no cellphones in the car! They will talk eventually. It’s vip to become accustomed to talking comfortably w each other. It counts way in the future. 💕
I had missed that post I truly appreciate your honesty! I try to encourage my now young adult children to vote even if they don’t have a strong preference. If a person decides to not vote, I am not sure they have a right to complain about their government. I’m happy you’ll be voting this time! In 2016 I stayed in line over 90 mins to vote for Hillary. I know she lost, but I would have felt terrible if I didn’t as my state, pa, is always close
Hi, Chris. As I'm sure you know, a whole lot of people have been making many of these and similar points about the false conception of "objectivity" that a lot of journalists cling to, at the expense of accuracy, clarity, and helping their readers and viewers understand the asymmetries that are at the heart of our politics. Nor is the fact that "objectivity" as defined by a bunch of wealthy white guys nearly as objective as they think a new observation.
I'm glad that Len Downie offering up these observations has led you to think about them, but I can't help wondering if it has led you to reconsider other voices you've previously dismissed who have been making these points for a very long time? Or is the observation that wealthy white male journalists aren't as "objective" as they think premature until it has been endorsed by Len Downie?
I am quite sincerely glad to see that you are grappling with your assumptions about what journalism is, should be, and can be. I hope that as you do so dig deeper, and further back, and consider the wide range of people less prominent than Len Downie who have been making these arguments all along. And, perhaps, reconsider *other* arguments they have been making about what journalism is, and what it should be.
Let me start by saying I really enjoy your writing, and have followed your work since around 2008. I got my Fixes virtually every day (then it was Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix) till I dropped off after 2012, and then more sporadically over the next 4-5 years (this description is Fix-specific).
In my mind, your evolution did not begin recently.
To be clear, I think you try more than most to be balanced, but I noticed a shift sometime in the 2011-2013 window, when you seemed to become ever so slightly more overtly leftish, and have remained so ever since.
I have always wondered if you felt that "shift" or if something happen professionally or personally around then.
That said, I am glad to see you up and running again outside the context of general media, and look forward to reading more from you.
I have a longtime friend who's a journalist. He made it a habit never to vote in a primary election, and always to vote in a general election. I think other journalists also had that practice.
"Why I have never voted."
Because you think politics is a game. That's the answer. Because you don't see how the fun little horse race stuff you like to write about has very, very real effects on people's lives. It's always been a game to you because you do not have an ounce of empathy for another living person whose name isn't Chris Cillizza. While people were scared, you were too busy giggling to yourself and writing "Why Donald Trump is the Michael Jordan of nicknames!" or "The 10 wackiest lines from Trump's most recent speech" where half of the entries are just you going, "Um.... no," "Mitch McConnell, call your office," and "[narrator voice]."
You have always been what's wrong with US political media, Chris. You still are.
I'm a political junkie but professionally I'm a film critic. My definition of "objectivity" is that you should be able to read one of my reviews (which, of course, is my OPINION) and be able to disagree with it yet still get sufficient information to let you know if you would want to see the movie. I think the notion of newspeople not voting -- John Chancellor, I believe, was another -- is a pointless, empty gesture. Don't campaign for a candidate or contribute to them, but in the voting booth you're a citizen, and not a journalist. And no one need know who you voted for.
I've always been a big fan of yours, but I could never get behind your not voting stance. As a reporter, I always found I was the most informed. I could and do have my own opinions but could still report and ask questions to both sides and give the reader the best chance to make an informed decision.
And Chris, there are probably local elections in 2023 too. Vote!
Agreed. As a retired reporter, where I spent my career in large and small markets, not voting on the artificial altar of ``objectivity’’ always struck me with an air of arrogance. I was trained to accurately report the facts, fearlessly root out more facts, pursue and report the truth. Journalism is not a religious order. Instead, there’s a strong case to be made that reporters and editors, having a ringside seat to events, are better qualified than most to cast a ballot. Welcome to your long overdue exercise of American citizenship, Chris.
Chris, I agree with your article. NEWS at every level is NOT objective. Take local news for instance. Almost every local news broadcast begins with the local crime reports, making people think that locally crime is rampant. In reality crime, especially violent crime has decreased over the decades. However, it catches people's eyes, ears and ultimately their pocketbooks. Just the way stories are posted on national broadcasts shows the editor's bias as to what they consider to be most important. Don't get me started with digital news, especially controversial or in some cases downright wrong stories. More advertisements show up when a thread that is controversial takes over on digital platforms. All that being said, I will continue to vote, because I believe that "if you don't vote, don't complain about the outcome!"
This is simply junk. Besides national/state level elections there are so many more which are utterly and completely disconnected from your employment. Your approach is unbelievably juvenile.
I too had a "policy" of not voting. I was on active duty in the U.S. Army. I believed that regardless of who was the Commander in Chief, it was my duty to follow. Regardless of party. And therefore, to show no bias, I never voted. Then, after I retired, I started voting. And will continue. It is now my duty as a citizen. To try to improve this nation.
Before I step out on a limb here, some background: I subscribed to the daily CNN newsletters in your’s and Stelter’s day. At the same time I subscribed to the Dispatch. I sub NYT. I read NPR’s home page daily.
I usually trust the individuals but I can also often see a lean this way or that; which doesn’t bother me if the reporter is honest about it.
Where I have more concern is WHAT gets covered -and watch out! 3rd rail here I come! Such as LGBTQ and more specifically trans issues. I see multiple articles, often daily, yet I don’t think proportionally trans people represent a large segment of our population. Many aspects of this issue are still up for debate. But if you simply consider the number of articles about transgender issues, you’d think it was much bigger. I see this as an editorial issue; not individual reporters. And that’s just one issue and given its notoriety I’m reluctant to even share this. I’m NOT transphobic, just confused about it.
I appreciate your transparency here. Good luck with your Substack.
Voting has nothing to do with journalism or vice versa. Journalism has everything to do with reporting the facts - and not which ones you believe, which is where the rubber meets the road. Where news reporting goes off the rails is when/where you say, "Every story has 3 sides & the truth is somehwere in the middle". The bias in reporting is exactly how people frame & shape their opinions of the news.
It is a kinda' Catch-22 that makes the truth an elusive target & objectivity a matter of your own bias.
Chris
Voting is good!
Going back to your parenting column, and riding in car w teens. Now I know I wasn’t stern enough to do the right things because wanted to just get along w the kidlings. But I’m telling you, follow the rule, no cellphones in the car! They will talk eventually. It’s vip to become accustomed to talking comfortably w each other. It counts way in the future. 💕
I had missed that post I truly appreciate your honesty! I try to encourage my now young adult children to vote even if they don’t have a strong preference. If a person decides to not vote, I am not sure they have a right to complain about their government. I’m happy you’ll be voting this time! In 2016 I stayed in line over 90 mins to vote for Hillary. I know she lost, but I would have felt terrible if I didn’t as my state, pa, is always close
Thanks so much, Chris. I think I understand now. All is forgiven.
Hi, Chris. As I'm sure you know, a whole lot of people have been making many of these and similar points about the false conception of "objectivity" that a lot of journalists cling to, at the expense of accuracy, clarity, and helping their readers and viewers understand the asymmetries that are at the heart of our politics. Nor is the fact that "objectivity" as defined by a bunch of wealthy white guys nearly as objective as they think a new observation.
I'm glad that Len Downie offering up these observations has led you to think about them, but I can't help wondering if it has led you to reconsider other voices you've previously dismissed who have been making these points for a very long time? Or is the observation that wealthy white male journalists aren't as "objective" as they think premature until it has been endorsed by Len Downie?
I am quite sincerely glad to see that you are grappling with your assumptions about what journalism is, should be, and can be. I hope that as you do so dig deeper, and further back, and consider the wide range of people less prominent than Len Downie who have been making these arguments all along. And, perhaps, reconsider *other* arguments they have been making about what journalism is, and what it should be.
The "American public" is a joke criterion.
Just an observation:
Let me start by saying I really enjoy your writing, and have followed your work since around 2008. I got my Fixes virtually every day (then it was Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix) till I dropped off after 2012, and then more sporadically over the next 4-5 years (this description is Fix-specific).
In my mind, your evolution did not begin recently.
To be clear, I think you try more than most to be balanced, but I noticed a shift sometime in the 2011-2013 window, when you seemed to become ever so slightly more overtly leftish, and have remained so ever since.
I have always wondered if you felt that "shift" or if something happen professionally or personally around then.
That said, I am glad to see you up and running again outside the context of general media, and look forward to reading more from you.
I don’t vote either .. I find someone who will vote the other way and we promise each other we won’t vote!
I have a longtime friend who's a journalist. He made it a habit never to vote in a primary election, and always to vote in a general election. I think other journalists also had that practice.