Talk:Chris Cillizza/Archive 1

Perceived perspective
I removed the line "from a center-left perspective" from the end of the first paragraph. Is there evidence in support of this, or is it an assumption because he works for the Washington Post? I read his blog almost daily and, in my view, his stories are as unbiased as it gets. -- NS 71.63.204.190 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add it back in. Take a look at this: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/01/palin_crazy_or_crazy_like_a_fo.html?hpid=sec-politics. If he can say "a sympathetic interviewer in the form of conservative talk radio host John Ziegler," he can be classified himself as being on the liberal end of the spectrum. Take also the following quotes as evidence (emphasis mine):
 * Others, like the Post's own Ruth Marcus, shot holes through Palin's suggestions about the double standards in the media coverage between her and Kennedy.
 * Others, like the Post's own Ruth Marcus, shot holes through Palin's suggestions about the double standards in the media coverage between her and Kennedy.


 * The quoted "hole-shooting" contained no factual revelations that might justify language that implies a clear victory for Ruth Marcus. It was simply an opposing perspective.


 * And yet, despite that quite legitimate criticism, we continue to believe that there is a certain level of strategy and savvy in Palin's ongoing jihad against the media, the left and the affluent.
 * And yet, despite that quite legitimate criticism, we continue to believe that there is a certain level of strategy and savvy in Palin's ongoing jihad against the media, the left and the affluent.


 * Meanwhile, the Daily Kos is simply "the Daily Kos blog," not "the liberal Daily Kos blog."
 * "The whole thing is amazing to watch," wrote one poster on the Daily Kos blog. "She lives in alternate reality. It's very funny, yet very scary."
 * "The whole thing is amazing to watch," wrote one poster on the Daily Kos blog. "She lives in alternate reality. It's very funny, yet very scary."


 * Unbiased? Hardly. Mr Cillizza looks down on Ms Palin and uses language that makes his disdain obvious. He explicitly casts some opinions as strong and others as not, depending on their sources. Palin is "populist" and "crazy" (or "crazy like a fox"). Opponents have "quite legitimate criticisms" and "shoot holes" in Palin's claims.


 * He has a clear opinion. -- Kaje (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just removed "from a liberal perspective" from the end of the first paragraph and wanted to make sure this was noted. I don't think there is any citable evidence of any bias.--Patrick «» 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, it's so tough not to be sarcastic. Take a look at Cillizza's record on candidate's health. Bachman's and McCain's health are scrutinized under a microscope but Hillary's health is of no issue. Of course, wiki lawyering by flocks of liberals who live here can suppress this venue's bias to the public. Honestly, you guys don't do yourself any favors by living in an echo chamber. If you were honest about your own candidate's failures from the beginning you would be in a stronger position now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E300:6300:C0EC:20EF:AAE5:158E (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been reading his editorials on cnn.com for the last month and he is blatantly a Democrat...why every conservative commentator mentions their political views, but liberals pretend to be "unbiased"? If your a liberal you should own it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.85.192.154 (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Everything he writes is bashing the right. Even when they do something good, he spins it to look bad. He's obviously a liberal, he should own it.

Self-Promotion on CNN.com
I have noticed that on the CNN.com home page, the articles written by Cillizza contain his name in the link to the story, as a byline: e.g., "Cillizza: Russia probe moves to Oval Office." However, none of the other reporters have their name directly in the article title on the CNN home page. Why does Cillizza honor himself with this distinction when there are certainly other CNN.com journalists who are equally or more skilled. No other major publications allow their digital editors-at-large to do this, such as the Washington Post or NY Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.88.104 (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Advocacy Journalism
Cillizza clearly takes a non-objective viewpoint in his reporting. A quick scroll of his Twitter feed demonstrates 90%-plus of his Twitter tweets are anti-White House administration and anti-conservatives. In addition, see article at http://canadafreepress.com/article/with-one-tweet-cnns-chris-cillizza-exposes-the-media-as-that-table-full-of. In addition, Cillizza re-tweeted with glee a (truncated and misleading) GIF of the Polish President's wife appearing to not shake Donald Trump's hand, when she actually did. Before you reply with how objective Cillizza is with his reporting at CNN and at The Point, just take a quick scroll of his Twitter feed and ask if you yourself are being objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.88.104 (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this twice now, but Cillizza's "Occupation" is not an "Advocacy Journalist." The infobox really is not the place for outside opinions about the article's topic. Nicolas Cage's infobox occupation is "Actor, producer"; I may want to change this to "Bad actor, worse producer", but that would be a point of view, the job is still the same.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 17:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Self-Promotion on CNN.com
I have noticed that on the CNN.com home page, the articles written by Cillizza contain his name in the link to the story, as a byline: e.g., "Cillizza: Russia probe moves to Oval Office." However, none of the other reporters have their name directly in the article title on the CNN home page. Why does Cillizza honor himself with this distinction when there are certainly other CNN.com journalists who are equally or more skilled. No other major publications allow their digital editors-at-large to do this, such as the Washington Post or NY Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.88.104 (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Advocacy Journalism
Cillizza clearly takes a non-objective viewpoint in his reporting. A quick scroll of his Twitter feed demonstrates 90%-plus of his Twitter tweets are anti-White House administration and anti-conservatives. In addition, see article at http://canadafreepress.com/article/with-one-tweet-cnns-chris-cillizza-exposes-the-media-as-that-table-full-of. In addition, Cillizza re-tweeted with glee a (truncated and misleading) GIF of the Polish President's wife appearing to not shake Donald Trump's hand, when she actually did. Before you reply with how objective Cillizza is with his reporting at CNN and at The Point, just take a quick scroll of his Twitter feed and ask if you yourself are being objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.88.104 (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this twice now, but Cillizza's "Occupation" is not an "Advocacy Journalist." The infobox really is not the place for outside opinions about the article's topic. Nicolas Cage's infobox occupation is "Actor, producer"; I may want to change this to "Bad actor, worse producer", but that would be a point of view, the job is still the same.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 17:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Perceived perspective
I removed the line "from a center-left perspective" from the end of the first paragraph. Is there evidence in support of this, or is it an assumption because he works for the Washington Post? I read his blog almost daily and, in my view, his stories are as unbiased as it gets. -- NS 71.63.204.190 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add it back in. Take a look at this: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/01/palin_crazy_or_crazy_like_a_fo.html?hpid=sec-politics. If he can say "a sympathetic interviewer in the form of conservative talk radio host John Ziegler," he can be classified himself as being on the liberal end of the spectrum. Take also the following quotes as evidence (emphasis mine):
 * Others, like the Post's own Ruth Marcus, shot holes through Palin's suggestions about the double standards in the media coverage between her and Kennedy.
 * Others, like the Post's own Ruth Marcus, shot holes through Palin's suggestions about the double standards in the media coverage between her and Kennedy.


 * The quoted "hole-shooting" contained no factual revelations that might justify language that implies a clear victory for Ruth Marcus. It was simply an opposing perspective.


 * And yet, despite that quite legitimate criticism, we continue to believe that there is a certain level of strategy and savvy in Palin's ongoing jihad against the media, the left and the affluent.
 * And yet, despite that quite legitimate criticism, we continue to believe that there is a certain level of strategy and savvy in Palin's ongoing jihad against the media, the left and the affluent.


 * Meanwhile, the Daily Kos is simply "the Daily Kos blog," not "the liberal Daily Kos blog."
 * "The whole thing is amazing to watch," wrote one poster on the Daily Kos blog. "She lives in alternate reality. It's very funny, yet very scary."
 * "The whole thing is amazing to watch," wrote one poster on the Daily Kos blog. "She lives in alternate reality. It's very funny, yet very scary."


 * Unbiased? Hardly. Mr Cillizza looks down on Ms Palin and uses language that makes his disdain obvious. He explicitly casts some opinions as strong and others as not, depending on their sources. Palin is "populist" and "crazy" (or "crazy like a fox"). Opponents have "quite legitimate criticisms" and "shoot holes" in Palin's claims.


 * He has a clear opinion. -- Kaje (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just removed "from a liberal perspective" from the end of the first paragraph and wanted to make sure this was noted. I don't think there is any citable evidence of any bias.--Patrick «» 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, it's so tough not to be sarcastic. Take a look at Cillizza's record on candidate's health. Bachman's and McCain's health are scrutinized under a microscope but Hillary's health is of no issue. Of course, wiki lawyering by flocks of liberals who live here can suppress this venue's bias to the public. Honestly, you guys don't do yourself any favors by living in an echo chamber. If you were honest about your own candidate's failures from the beginning you would be in a stronger position now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E300:6300:C0EC:20EF:AAE5:158E (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been reading his editorials on cnn.com for the last month and he is blatantly a Democrat...why every conservative commentator mentions their political views, but liberals pretend to be "unbiased"? If your a liberal you should own it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.85.192.154 (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Everything he writes is bashing the right. Even when they do something good, he spins it to look bad. He's obviously a liberal, he should own it.