When journalists say politicians need to speak more with the media, it’s greeted like yoga instructors demanding you stretch, or health food experts insisting you eat more whole grains.
“Well sure,” we think, “it’s important to you, because that’s your business.”
I worry that we are slipping into that mindset during this presidential election season.
Kamala Harris was elevated to the Democratic nominee more than two months ago. Two months. During that time, she has done one major cable news interview (CNN, which she shared with Tim Walz), one softball local TV interview (with a Philadelphia affiliate), a visit with the National Association of Black Journalists and a lovefest with Oprah Winfrey.
That used to be a day’s work for a presidential candidate.
Not anymore. Harris hasn’t held a single news conference nor faced a single harsh critic. The feeling is that she is trying to run out the clock to Nov. 5 without really being pressed on anything.
And the fact that that doesn’t seem to bother people is something that should bother people. A lot.
Unanswered questions
To understand why I say this, stop thinking of the media as its own entity, and think of it as a conduit to the people. That’s what it is supposed to be. Reporters ask the questions that you, the public, want to know, and, more importantly, deserve to know.
What is Harris’ real plan for the border? Why has it not worked for the Biden-Harris administration? What about the national debt? What are her true taxation plans? How would she immediately deal with conflicts in the Middle East? What about campus protests and their divisiveness? Will she back off President Joe Biden’s EV goals or push them further? Why has she changed positions on health care, guns, fracking and other issues?
There is a laundry list of questions that Harris is yet to face, and an even longer list of follow-up questions that should be asked once she actually answers. So far, neither has happened.
We are six weeks from the election. Yet the group screaming loudest about Harris’ avoidance of the press is, well, the press. And not even all of it. Many outlets seem strangely willing to accept Harris’ posture.
This is quite a change in our business. In years past, it would be impossible to imagine a candidate for the highest office in the land campaigning for two months and never having been interrupted with, “I’m sorry, you didn’t answer the question.”
Without that, leaders quickly embrace a new norm. Avoid. Deflect. Control the format.
Political operatives call it strategy.
We should call it deception.
The right to find out
Why? Because voters have the right to know everything about a future president’s plans. They have a right to view how that future president handles a tough grilling, a follow-up, a correction. It gives us insight into how they will handle the much tougher questions they’ll face should they win.
So far, with Harris, it’s been stump speeches and commercials. If this keeps up, all we’ll know about her is what the speechwriters and ad creators want you to know.
Is that really how we want to choose our leader?
Now, you can’t write anything about one candidate in today’s climate without expecting a scream from the other side. I hear it now. What about Donald Trump?
Well. I am not a fan of Trump, and he should be subject to the same principles I am suggesting for Harris. And yes, he, too, is trying to craft himself though ads. But so far, when it comes to media access, his campaign is dwarfing hers. And as a result, for better or worse, we know more about him than her.
According to media reports, during the first 59 days of Harris’ campaign, Trump and JD Vance gave more than 10 times the number of interviews that Harris and Walz did.
Vance, in particular, has gone places that are not very welcoming (and gotten grilled for it). Trump has at least held news conferences, where he frequently makes foolish remarks and false statements. But these help us make up our minds about him.
When Trump visited the NABJ, his first question, from ABC’s Rachel Scott, went like this:
“I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room, sir. … You have used words like animal and rabbit to describe Black district attorneys. You’ve attacked Black journalists, calling them a loser, saying the questions they ask are ‘stupid and racist’ …
“So my question, sir … why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?”
Tough question. Pointed question. Trump hated it. He whined about its rudeness. And in his complaining, we learned a lot about him.
But has Harris faced a single inquiry like that? When she sat with the NABJ last week, the reporter’s opening inquiry was friendly-toned, and came with a chuckle:
“Madame Vice President, thank you so much for doing this and making the time. You’re a little bit busy right now …”
He then posed the generic question: “Are voters better off now than they were four years ago?”
Her answer, like many she has given, could best be described as vague.
Limited expectations
But why is it mostly journalists who are complaining about this issue? Is it really the yoga instructor yelling about stretching?
I don’t think so. The problem, in my view, is that we have grown so partisan in our thinking, we dismiss all criticism as “the other side attacking us.”
We no longer trust our media to be impartial. We see Fox News as right-wing and MSNBC as left. Newspapers, which used to enjoy the respect of honest neutrality now are slammed as “liberal” (New York Times, Washington Post) or “conservative” (Wall Street Journal). And they don’t do much to dispel those labels.
As such, we view anyone who calls out Harris for lack of transparency as a Trump supporter. A MAGA kook. And anyone who does the same to Trump must be a woke socialist. This erases all legitimate criticism.
Which only helps the candidates hide.
Add to this the convenient new development that influencers and podcasters are seen as “media,” and candidates can cherry pick those friendly to them and say, “Look, I’m doing interviews. What are you talking about?”
Here’s what we’re talking about. Thomas Jefferson saying “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
Cannot be limited. Important words. Not just about freedom, but access. The media has rightfully taken criticism in recent years. It is imperfect and far too partisan. But it still serves a critical role in the inquiry, exploration and exposure of those who would govern us.
And right now, it is being happily ignored by a candidate who stands an excellent chance of becoming our president for the next four years without any of us really knowing what she’s thinking, or how she reacts when cornered. By accepting that, we are made lesser. Not one side or the other. All of us.
Contact Mitch Albom: malbom@freepress.com. Check out the latest updates with his charities, books and events at MitchAlbom.com. Follow him @mitchalbom.
Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters and we may publish it online and in print.
0 Comments