No one, I mean NO ONE take Chris Cilliza seriously. He's a thirsty chode who hasn't had a good take on politics in years. I like you, but you got to read the room.
Here is an answer to why Chris could not report about the indicators that Biden might be experiencing cognitive issues without push back.
The anti-Biden reporting was always done without context, as if the press thought the Biden admin/campaign knew Biden was demented and had engaged in a giant conspiracy to keep it from the media. Reporters took it personally, were angry, and seemed to have an axe to grind with the administration for intentionally deceiving them. I listen to/read A LOT of news. The level of vitriol was high.
I stopped following people who reported it that way, as if they were discovering the coverup of the century and as if it rivaled anything Trump has done.
You know what story I would have listened to? A human story about aging and the toll it takes. What facilities a person might lose and what they might retain under high duress. Some context about the fact that the right/Russia had been waging a disinformation campaign on Biden’s mental state for years, which made it hard for anyone to have a nuanced understanding of the reality on the ground. Some context about the month-long period where Biden seemed most disconnected overlapping with the heightened protests of the American support of Israel and the constant chants of Genocide Joe, the trial and sentencing of his son in a case he felt was brought to damage him and thus his fault, and a several week bout of flu/whatever he had.
Biden’s supporters could see all that. They were concerned. They would have welcomed (I think) a genuine attempt to assess what was happening and the degree to which it was permanent cognitive decline vs situational decline. Anyone who deals with elderly people knows those aren’t the same. And yes, there is room for a good faith debate about whether the benefits that come with having an elder statesman in office at a perilous time are outweighed by the risk that advanced age can bring of a reduced ability to handle and roll with the highest of high stress jobs.
But none of that is what the legacy media figures offered. (I count Cilliza among them though I no longer watch him precisely because of his inability to include context and nuance in his reporting.). They felt vindicated and pounced on every shred of evidence that confirmed their priors. And yes, I stopped following the people who did that. Not because I don’t care about the truth but because I wasn’t getting it.
JVL, whose work I largely admire, told me once that Cilliza is the sweetest guy he knows. I tried again to follow him after that and I just can’t. There is a real absence of understanding and nuance in his reporting that too often makes him sound like a hack.
It’s not being subjective to include context and nuance. Oddly, JVL gets that really well. It’s the only way to truly be objective in my book.
Keep going Elliott and keep thinking about the right questions to ask the electorate. As you say , it’s important to know what people are experiencing and what they want from their government. Personally, I now wonder what binds us together as a country and why we vote for the individuals we vote for. Maybe you can help clear that up in the two years!
Trump may be just as popular with Republicans who want to deport you to El Salvador for being a Democrat. You see the problem? It doesn’t empower mentally sick Americans to do that.
Conversations like this are like criticizing the horrible color of the nuke. They really miss the point.
I think there’s a cultural problem with the chattering class in DC. A brain worm. That stops them from processing information properly. It’s bizarre.
I am disappointed to see Cilliza being given time and space on this page. I'm here for serious analysis, and having the least serious pundit in the business on is counter to what you're doing. It isn't that Cillizza is a bad pundit who's often wrong (that's fine, lots of people are often wrong, myself included), he's the antithesis of data-driven and reason-driven thinking about politics. Everything he posts is Entertainment Tonight-level vibes slop, and this page deserves better than this.
I'd love to see you do more live conversations, but in the future, I hope you'll get people who at least understand what serious political analysis is.
I don't want to come off as megadunking or policing your own publication, and what I watched of it was not Awful or offensive or anything. The issue is that the type of punditry that Cillizza did and continues to do -- treating politics as entertainment analysis -- is a major enabler of our political moment. There's a real cost to writing about politics as Cillizza has, especially in a time where a reality show guy is parlaying his entertainment value into political power.
I don't want to be a jerk or harp on it, though, this was just to clarify my concern with someone whose history is the antithesis of treating politics with serious concern. I respect your work and I'm not going anywhere, and I hope this doesn't come off as hostile.
No one, I mean NO ONE take Chris Cilliza seriously. He's a thirsty chode who hasn't had a good take on politics in years. I like you, but you got to read the room.
Here is an answer to why Chris could not report about the indicators that Biden might be experiencing cognitive issues without push back.
The anti-Biden reporting was always done without context, as if the press thought the Biden admin/campaign knew Biden was demented and had engaged in a giant conspiracy to keep it from the media. Reporters took it personally, were angry, and seemed to have an axe to grind with the administration for intentionally deceiving them. I listen to/read A LOT of news. The level of vitriol was high.
I stopped following people who reported it that way, as if they were discovering the coverup of the century and as if it rivaled anything Trump has done.
You know what story I would have listened to? A human story about aging and the toll it takes. What facilities a person might lose and what they might retain under high duress. Some context about the fact that the right/Russia had been waging a disinformation campaign on Biden’s mental state for years, which made it hard for anyone to have a nuanced understanding of the reality on the ground. Some context about the month-long period where Biden seemed most disconnected overlapping with the heightened protests of the American support of Israel and the constant chants of Genocide Joe, the trial and sentencing of his son in a case he felt was brought to damage him and thus his fault, and a several week bout of flu/whatever he had.
Biden’s supporters could see all that. They were concerned. They would have welcomed (I think) a genuine attempt to assess what was happening and the degree to which it was permanent cognitive decline vs situational decline. Anyone who deals with elderly people knows those aren’t the same. And yes, there is room for a good faith debate about whether the benefits that come with having an elder statesman in office at a perilous time are outweighed by the risk that advanced age can bring of a reduced ability to handle and roll with the highest of high stress jobs.
But none of that is what the legacy media figures offered. (I count Cilliza among them though I no longer watch him precisely because of his inability to include context and nuance in his reporting.). They felt vindicated and pounced on every shred of evidence that confirmed their priors. And yes, I stopped following the people who did that. Not because I don’t care about the truth but because I wasn’t getting it.
JVL, whose work I largely admire, told me once that Cilliza is the sweetest guy he knows. I tried again to follow him after that and I just can’t. There is a real absence of understanding and nuance in his reporting that too often makes him sound like a hack.
It’s not being subjective to include context and nuance. Oddly, JVL gets that really well. It’s the only way to truly be objective in my book.
Keep going Elliott and keep thinking about the right questions to ask the electorate. As you say , it’s important to know what people are experiencing and what they want from their government. Personally, I now wonder what binds us together as a country and why we vote for the individuals we vote for. Maybe you can help clear that up in the two years!
Trump may be just as popular with Republicans who want to deport you to El Salvador for being a Democrat. You see the problem? It doesn’t empower mentally sick Americans to do that.
Conversations like this are like criticizing the horrible color of the nuke. They really miss the point.
I think there’s a cultural problem with the chattering class in DC. A brain worm. That stops them from processing information properly. It’s bizarre.
most folks think cilliza is a clown
I am disappointed to see Cilliza being given time and space on this page. I'm here for serious analysis, and having the least serious pundit in the business on is counter to what you're doing. It isn't that Cillizza is a bad pundit who's often wrong (that's fine, lots of people are often wrong, myself included), he's the antithesis of data-driven and reason-driven thinking about politics. Everything he posts is Entertainment Tonight-level vibes slop, and this page deserves better than this.
I'd love to see you do more live conversations, but in the future, I hope you'll get people who at least understand what serious political analysis is.
I thought we had a good conversation!
I don't want to come off as megadunking or policing your own publication, and what I watched of it was not Awful or offensive or anything. The issue is that the type of punditry that Cillizza did and continues to do -- treating politics as entertainment analysis -- is a major enabler of our political moment. There's a real cost to writing about politics as Cillizza has, especially in a time where a reality show guy is parlaying his entertainment value into political power.
I don't want to be a jerk or harp on it, though, this was just to clarify my concern with someone whose history is the antithesis of treating politics with serious concern. I respect your work and I'm not going anywhere, and I hope this doesn't come off as hostile.