Chris Cillizza tweets.
Saying it more times doesn't make it more believable. Saying "Period" doesn't end the discussion.
Wouldn't it be weird if it did?
ADDED: I can see how a serious, ethical journalist might have a complicated relationship with the feeling of "rooting" for something. Journalism gets important and exciting when terrible things happen, so a journalist might detect himself "rooting" for the Category 5 hurricane to hit Miami or for a second jetliner to crash into the World Trade Center or for terrible allegations about a beloved pop star to grow more and more undeniable or for an assassination to inspire multiple copycats. These are shameful feelings warranting vigorous repression.
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
১০৬টি মন্তব্য:
And nor do we exaggerate!
I tried it. Saying "period" didn't get me out of taking out the garbage.
Good reporters may not even believe they're "rooting" for a side, but unconsciously we all have our biases. It'll affect how we perceive facts, and that happens for journalists as well. Good journalists should at least acknowledge that this can happen and should invite scrutiny over this in order to better police their own biases.
Objective means throwing stuff in the way. It's in the etymology.
I'm sure there were KKK members in the 1950s and 60s who were less bigoted than Chris Cillizza.
A billion times? I'm just trying to do the math here. If he says or types it really fast, maybe 30x per minute, he'd have to be about seventy years old to have accomplished that. The claim sounds suspicious.
"Bettlejuice..bettlejuice..bettlejuice."
Does the name Cillizza tie in with Althouse's Godzilla post yesterday?
The Media is the Monster.
I am Laslo.
It is way beyond "rooting for." They are leading the charge. They are players.
On the planet Zorg maybe.
The media has lost all credibility.
Liars lie. Its what they do.
But I'll cut Chris Cizzilla some slack. Sometimes journalists forget the alternative media exists, exposing the deplorables to non-sanctioned facts.
This is so, so , so good Althouse. Period.
I am Laslo.
The problem with Cillizza's claim isn't that he's wrong and reporters actually do have political leanings. The problem is the lack of self-awareness. Anyone who asserts pure objectivity makes it clear they can't be trusted.
The Democrat Media Industrial Complex is real.
Read the wikileaks. It's all there. It's all pay-to-play insider mega-corporate group-think greed with a (D) on it.
That's like a schoolteacher saying, "I love all my students equally."
The leaked Podesta emails would make one think otherwise. Unbiased reporters don't "tee up" stories for a campaign. They don't call the campaign for questions to ask the other candidate. They don't write and say they are committed to doing whatever they can to help a particular candidate win.
I love you, Laslo, so, so , so much.
Unbiased reporters don't "tee up" stories for a campaign.
Yeah Maggie Halberman seems to be getting off without much criticism.
And April Ryan emailed Hillary that she did a "mic drop" and she was cheering for her.
He's right, technically. They don't root for a side: they're on a side. And there has been no doubt about which side for decades.
Another good one I heard was Brian Setzer on CNN saying reporters don't just make up stories.
I agree that real reporters don't take sides but I can't happen to name any at the moment. The people who we commonly call reporters these days are almost always advocates for progressiveism and therefore, the Democratic Party. Cillizza is an excellent example of what he claims doesn't exist. He might at sell have said, "Reporters are not walking, talking human beings. Period."
Hey..speaking of being impartial/being above it all, how is the honorable justice Roberts doing? Red face adding a bit of color to the place?
Wikileaks and Journolist tell us otherwise. Period.
Hagar said...
It is way beyond "rooting for." They are leading the charge. They are players.
Excellent parsing of statement. Someone's ready for a Hillary! presidency.
I agree that real reporters don't take sides but I can't happen to name any at the moment.
I'll go with Sharyl Attkisson.
https://sharylattkisson.com/the-clearest-no-spin-summary-of-fbi-report-on-hillary-clinton-email/
Reporters talk for soap opera women, who more or less believe them as a serious source because it's soap opera.
People who like soap opera are serious people, is the confirmed belief.
It's more or less the feminist argument as well, except it's people who think like women are serious people. You find that all over.
The term pivot was invented to describe today's media. They build up and then they pivot and they tear down. But with Trump it was in one day.
LOL, I guess they figure that they still haven't told the lie often enough.
Yes it would be weird if true. That Chris thinks it's true is disturbing. But then this is the same "journolist" that wrote an article attempting to squelch the Hillary health inquiries and warn other "journolists" off the story -- just before she fell down and was captured by a true citizen journalist.
Let's take a moment and marvel at the power of that video of Hillary at the 9/11 event. There was no spin or context or even sound. There was just silent video of the event. Whoever shot the video, they did not interpret it. It was presented in simple form, but became the most powerful imagery seen yet this season. It went against the grain of media reporting just by being there, showing us the candidate behind the curtain for a moment.
It's even more striking for being compared to the propaganda shots "allowed" by Team H later when she was "strolling" in her seizure shades outside Chelsea's luxurious condo, hugging the kid, waving to reporters, saying her "lines" to the press. Staged. Fake. Tells the viewer nothing of substance. So different from the spontaneous newsmaking ability of those short few seconds of video at the curb when Hillary went stiff, dropped something out her pant leg and toppled over as she was dumped in the van.
So many questions still unanswered by our intrinsically incurious "Press" mob...
A list of Cizillia's recent articles in WaPo:
Giuliani goes full blown Trump
Trump TV is a Republican nightmare
Unshackled Trump, campaign lurches to the finish
Trump keeps having the worst week in Washington
Trumps sets the stage not to concede election
Paul Ryan plotting the future of GOP after Trump loses
2016 electoral map collapsing on Trump
Trump says there is a global conspiracy against him
All those stories about Hillary's emails, the CLinton Foundation, the sleazy nature of the Clinton campaign workers. Yep, balanced.
"Mike said...
Let's take a moment and marvel at the power of that video of Hillary at the 9/11 event. There was no spin or context or even sound. There was just silent video of the event. Whoever shot the video, they did not interpret it. It was presented in simple form, but became the most powerful imagery seen yet this season. It went against the grain of media reporting just by being there, showing us the candidate behind the curtain for a moment."
I'm curious, has anyone seen that guy since?
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewenski. Period."
If only he hadn't left off the period, then he'd be in the clear. Period.
Saying it more times doesn't make it more believable. Saying "Period" doesn't end the discussion.
I think the logic is: "I genuinely believe it therefore you should believe it."
That's a common tactic.
Polls say 95% of people think reporters are lower than a flea's belly. I wonder why that number is so low.
He has bias coming out of his..whatever. Period.
Fish don't know they're wet.
It's even more striking for being compared to the propaganda shots "allowed" by Team H later when she was "strolling" in her seizure shades outside Chelsea's luxurious condo, hugging the kid, waving to reporters, saying her "lines" to the press. Staged. Fake. Tells the viewer nothing of substance.
That episode was full Jim Jong-un propaganda. Creepy and disturbing. I suspect part of the reason she doesn't resonate with young people is how ham handed her team is at media propaganda.
WaPo says it's all over and Hillary already won. I suggest that anyone believing WaPo stays home on Nov. 8, 2016.
For the billionth time, I did not eat the last slice of cake!
I've found that people who say "billionth" in a denial are being very deceptive.
A month ago Cilliza claimed questioning Hillary's health is sexist and bigoted. Eight years ago he questioned McCain's health.
It's probably true that Cillizza doesn't believe he's rooting for a side. He's so in thrall to the left wing media narrative that like a fish in water he doesn't understand it separate from himself.
ELC said...
He's right, technically. They don't root for a side: they're on a side.
I heard the ding from Family Feud when I read this. Althouse must have an awesome special effects guy.
Chris Cillizza is telling us that it's only a little rain.
"These are shameful feelings warranting vigorous repression." Assumes facts not in evidence. By all appearances, MSM flacks are shameless. Which the billionth/period overstatement tends to confirm.
This is umpire as Mom, losing her patience.
If everybody keeps insisting that you DO take a side, Chris, perhaps it's time for you to examine why so many people keep insisting that you do.
Most reporters are biased. Colon.
East Coast Media are deafened to the truth by the reverb in the echo chamber in which they've placed themselves.
If you want to really piss them off, say they are rooting for Trump to win.
They don't root for a side. They root for a candidate.
Pro-Trump in the primary.
Pro-Clinton in the general.
How else to explain the rah-rah Trump press early on even while sitting on Trump scandals until the last few months?
Candy Crowley could not be reached for comment...
Cillizza is a postmodern intellectual. His truth is his own and is different from anyone else's truth. Facts aren't facts because perception mediates them to consciousness. Got that? Here's an example.
Paddy O said...Pro-Trump in the primary.
Pro-Clinton in the general.
--
"See? That proves we just report the news."
"I can see how a serious, ethical journalist might have a complicated relationship with the feeling of "rooting" for something. Journalism gets important and exciting when terrible things happen, so a journalist might detect himself "rooting" for the Category 5 hurricane to hit Miami or for a second jetliner to crash into the World Trade Center or for terrible allegations about a beloved pop star to grow more and more undeniable or for an assassination to inspire multiple copycats. These are shameful feelings warranting vigorous repression."
Well of course on one level they "root" for such things--it's in their interest to get a scoop. When they cover a politician's speech, a part of them clearly wants the politician to say something crazy and newsworthy so they have something to report. But professional standards require that they not let these biases affect their work.
Billionth is so 20th century.
If he wanted to be cool and modern he would have said trillionth.
Anyone who asserts pure objectivity makes it clear they can't be trusted.
So true. Same thing with neutrality claims.
The Sunday after Trump's hot mic audio came out, Meet The Press spent the entire hour on it, save less than a minute at the end on the Wikileaks material. Cillizza is either a dolt or a liar. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and call him a liar.
A lifetime of experience tells me that the media is biased in a leftward direction. But wait a second! A member of that media tells me they are not biased. This changes everything! Thank god Chris Cillizza has made me aware of this mistake I've been making and now I know that I can trust them.
"Reporters don't root for a side. They just objectively report on Donald Trump's lies, racist comments, and history of sexual assaults, and explain over and over how his campaign is imploding."
Since disparate impact can 'prove' racism, it should prove leftist bias in the media.
No true Scotsman.
Has there been any reporter that has beclowned themselves more than Cillizza this election cycle? Is there any doubt that had the wikileaks had fingered Trump colluding with Russia or some illicit conduct that they Chris would be shouting it from the roof tops? Please.
He should have added "seriously" at the end. That makes an online statement wholly accurate, seriously.
"Fish don't know they're wet."
Exactly. The WaPo has a story about how a stewardess did not believe a black female doctor that she was an actual doctor.
Reporters are similar. All Republicans are racist, sexist, homophobic KKK members.
Trump was an amusing TV guy until he started pretending he was a Republican. Now, he is a monster. All true Scotsmen know this.
Why argue ?
Maybe you didn’t get the memo, Chris: Reporters now call themselves journolists
I will give him some credit. He seems to, on very rare occasion, to try. Many of his MSM colleagues don't even bother these days.
And, it is too bad, in a way. The passing of an era. We have known for a long time now that much of the MSM was a bit biased. For example, calling CNN the Clinton News Network comes from when they were leading the running of interference for Bill Clinton's impeachment. But, we have never seen it nearly this bad. Much of the MSM doesn't bother to even pretend neutrality and objectivity. We saw that with the biases of the moderators at the three debates so far - four years ago everyone was shocked by what Crawley did to Romney. This year, it is expected of them. Their job is to drag Crooked Hillary's rapidly failing corpse across the finish line, dead or alive. The problem for them is that their prostitution of their profession for the good of the Dem elites is going to destroy that profession. A rapidly growing portion of the population is just turning them off. Which means that if they can't catch a White House gig under Clinton, they face salary cuts and downsizing, just because they did their duty to Crooked Hillary and the other Dem party elites. They are, essentially, being forced to work their way out of their jobs.
We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Chris Cillizza's readers into what I call the basket of gullibles. Right? The —ist, —ist, —ic, —ic, middle-class-phobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. He and the WaPo keep trying to prop them up. They give voice to the Clintons' globalist message that used to have 11 million but only have 11,000 people -- now . He tweets and retweets their elitist politically-correct but hateful mean-spirited pussycat whistle pajama boy/girl rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — like Chris Cillizza — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
Chris Cillizza couldn't find his ass unless he tried to scratch his ear.
Brando said...
I tried it. Saying "period" didn't get me out of taking out the garbage.
Good reporters may not even believe they're "rooting" for a side, but unconsciously we all have our biases. It'll affect how we perceive facts, and that happens for journalists as well. Good journalists should at least acknowledge that this can happen and should invite scrutiny over this in order to better police their own biases.
10/17/16, 7:45 AM
There are no "good reporters" left, hell there are not even any "reporters" left, good or bad. All we have today are "journalists" which are not reporters.
This video is priceless: http://www.mrctv.org/embed/52014
I should have added to my last comment that the MSM seem to be working their way out of a job that most of them seem so self self unaware that they don't realize that they are doing it. Some are just crass enough to laugh at it, as they do it. But Chris C here seems to be a prime example of this. Well intentioned, but completely unaware of the biases that a sizable and growing portion of the public sees in him and his colleagues.
We don't root for a side. We just provide some candidates questions before a town hall, orchestrate to bury harmful stories to one side, coordinate to ask embarrassing questions ["What about your gaffes?"] to one side, etc., etc.
It just HAPPENS to always hurt one side and help the other.
Just a coincidence, really.
What an hilarious statement to make in 2016--the year professional journalists have spent telling us that the normal rules of objectivity don't apply, that they're no longer playing the "equal treatment of both sides" false equivalence game, and on and on. They've been more up front than ever about the fact that they're not being evenhanded--they've been congratulating themselves for it!
It makes absolutely no sense to then turn around and say "hey, we don't have a favorite, we don't pick sides!"
Worthy of ridicule.
"How else to explain the rah-rah Trump press early on even while sitting on Trump scandals until the last few months?"
-- The Clinton campaign wanted to run against Trump, and then the media set it up so they would, even sitting on stories that, if a journalist broke during the Republican primary, would make a name for themselves.
By waiting for the general, we don't even know who broke the story. Someone literally gave up the scoop of a life time to help Clinton win.
Of course they aren't "rooting", there is a truth and they are smart, so its noble of them to be truthful. Only us lesser minds see that as rooting. Because its nuanced and sophisticated, you know. These are journalists, at places like WaPo and the NYT.
Cillizza would never trust the police to investigate cases of police misconduct, but reporters are trained in the science of objectivity. Their observations are bias free. It's the people who claim otherwise that need to be investigated.
Seriously, does this guy think we've forgotten about JournoList? I mean, the Media never covered it (why would they cover a story that exposed them & their collusion & wrongdoing), but it wasn't all that long ago! There's a Wikipedia page about it, for heaven's sake. Wiki: JournoList
Shit, the recent WikiLeaks dump includes info about a private dinner meeting the Clinton campaign held with a large number of prominent Media personalities to help launch her campaign! Meeting with newsmakers might happen, sure, but how many of those people reported on the fact that they met with Clinton's campaign at the time? If the answer is "none of them," then why did they keep that fact secret? I don't think anyone even said "I was at an off-the-record meeting with the Clinton campaign last week."
Wikileaks: Press Dinner Details
From that Wiki on JouroList:
James Taranto observed that one JournoList contributor, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, stated "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists".[8]
Ackerman was also quoted as saying, "find a right winger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously, I mean this rhetorically."
But yeah, reporters & the Media don't "take sides," do they Cillizza? Oh, and the Left would neeeever use a false accusation of racism as a weapon against the Right...and if they did the Media would call them out for that immediately, wouldn't they.
What a joke.
"I can see how a serious, ethical journalist might have a complicated relationship with the feeling of "rooting" for something." Where, oh where, can we find one? An ethical one, that is.
Althouse: ": I can see how a serious, ethical journalist might have a complicated relationship with the feeling of "rooting" for something."
Yes, but what does that sentence have to do with Chris Cilizza? I fail to see the connection.
Arthur Schlesinger wrote a two volume biography of Andrew Jackson and never once mentioned the Trail of Tears. Lincoln Steffens found many reasons to admire Lenin and considered Rockefeller a great villain. Theodore White reported on the Reds in China. He was struck by their idealism and honesty as opposed to the corruption of the Kuomintang. Walter Lippmann was one of the earliest and most enthusiastic propagandists for the internment of Japanese Americans. He said that just as no American had the right to live on an aircraft carrier so did no American have the right to live on the coast.......I recommend all artists and journalists become committed leftists. Your sins are washed clean in the blood of The Cause.
The one industry AI should take over is delivering the news. Unless you are a robot, you are bias. It's just human nature.
"Let me say for the billionth time: Reporters don't root for a side. Period."
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
The tea-party folks were astro-turfed violent racists...
The Occupy Wallstreet folks were a peaceful grass-roots protest movement...
Black Lives Matter is peaceful, civil-rights protesters for honest change...
Yep, no media bias AT ALL!
He's lying and he knows it. POS. We've been watching liberal media bias all our lives.
Dan Rather didn't take a side. If he could have sat on Al Gore's lap during the 2000 election he would have.
The only way a guy like Chris Cilizza can claim what he tweeted, is the thinks the readers and the public are stupid.
Ironically the only stupid ones are the people who can see through the media's pre-determined narratives.
Blogger HoodlumDoodlum said...
Seriously, does this guy think we've forgotten about JournoList?
He hasn't read News Gate.
https://sharylattkisson.com/newsgate-2016/
This list isn't even comprehensive. It's still terrible.
There are no "good reporters" left, hell there are not even any "reporters" left, good or bad. All we have today are "journalists" which are not reporters.
We have stenographers and trolls. Little else.
Hell, give Milo a Sunday talk show. It'd at least be entertaining.
By waiting for the general, we don't even know who broke the story. Someone literally gave up the scoop of a life time to help Clinton win.
No joke. Without looking back, who remembers the name of the "reporter" who printed Trump's tax returns?
Meanwhile, we all remember Chris Cuomo telling us that LOOKING at Wikileaks was illegal.
"I can see how a serious, ethical journalist"
lol, good one!
Ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha.
"The only way a guy like Chris Cilizza can claim what he tweeted, is the thinks the readers and the public are stupid."
Nah, this is to assure his liberal readers that they are not chumps.
"operatives with bylines"
The one industry AI should take over is delivering the news.
Now, that's a very interesting idea worth exploring.
Screw them all. Every last "journalist" can kiss my fat ass.
They had/have an obligation, a duty to serve the truth. To report what is happening. Not "craft the narrative" to tell "their" truth. They have the responsibility to inform.
That is not good enough though. Simply having the honor to inform the public does not sufficiently change enough hearts and minds. It is slow and difficult to change the world and "make a difference" telling just the truth. People don't always "understand" the real truth behind the story so one needs to help it along and give just the right push.
Journalists made this happen. They made Obama happen, they made ObamaCare happen. They are making Hillary happen. They have destroyed good and decent people. They have actively supported fake and false narratives and have actively obscured the truth.
When the country burns and the "journalists" are "handled" as they always are, they will have earned it and then some and I will shed no tears for them.
cilizza is journolist, but he's also very earnest and foolish, unlike say yglesias and klein who are knavish,
"Let me say for the billionth time: Reporters don't root for a side. Period."
Chris Cillizza tweets.
Bullshit. Period.
Isn't this the guy who wrote the column: "Can we just stop talking about Hillary Clinton’s health now?” a week before she fell off the curb and announced she had pneumonia?
'Nuff said.
Wow! Five hours into the thread and no one has mentioned - If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period! That he would use "period" as a persuader after that whopper just shows how far CC is untethered from reality.
Actually, the more often you lie the less credible you become.
"Let me say for the billionth time: Reporters don't root for a side. Period."
Yeah, Bullshit.
I'm having a hard time squaring Cilizza's tweet with the photo of swooning journalists in Hillary's plane.
It gets even better: Today, one day after saying for the billionth time that reporters don’t take sides, Cilizza linked to a Center for Public Integrity report showing that 96 percent of journalists’ Presidential campaign contributions went to Hillary.
I can believe reporters don't think they are rooting for one side or the other. Everyone in the newsroom basically thinks the same way. So when the LA Times runs five anti-Trump stories and one anti-Trump column in the same edition, the reporter thinks, "Hey, that's the way it's supposed to be. That's where the facts lead us. In WWII, we ran anti-Hitler stories every day to. And with good reason. He was doing crazy stuff that was endangering our country."
The latest from Chris Cillizza: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/17/hillary-clintons-email-problems-just-came-roaring-back/
It's the smoking gun. The smoking gun that many people might find hard to see due to all the smoke.
This is reminding me more and more of the "third-rate burglary" of 1972. Congress should pre-impeach her. After she's elected it will probably be too late to convict her.
Chris Cillizza will be shocked to discover that 96 percent of journalists are uninterested in this particular smoking gun.
Meanwhile everyone in Australia is rolling on the floor laughing at the way the word root is used in the US.
Sure Hilary needs a good root, but you're all rooted if she wins.
“Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd and his wife, a Democratic consultant, hosted a dinner party at their Washington D.C.-area home last year for Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s communications director. An invitation for the shindig was sent on July 11, 2015 to John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman. Podesta’s hacked emails have been released online by Wikileaks. The party, which also involved a cocktail hour, was thrown for Palmieri and her husband, Jim Lyons. (Photo of Invitation) Todd’s wife, Kristian Kenny Todd, was at that time a consultant for former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, one of Hillary Clinton’s challengers.
"Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u [sic]," Thrush wrote to Podesta. "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this … tell me if I f***ed up anything," he continued.
"OTR: No problems here," Podesta responded.
Politico submits article to Podesta to approve before publishing! I am sure they show Trump the same courtesy.
Clintonian parsing of language here? If rooting is taken to mean being open about favoring one side, well the media does its level best not to admit rooting for one side. But most of them do happen to like one side, they just don't admit it openly.
Cillizza can call it what he will, but at a minimum favoring a side while denying it makes most of the media liars...which happens to be a great trait to have when the news needs to be "misreported" for convenience.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন