Talk:Chris Cillizza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Perceived perspective[edit]

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 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add it back in. Take a look at this: 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.
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.
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."
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 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 (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)