Things have gone exceedingly well for Kamala Harris thus far. She is dashing through the country on Air Force 2, addressing large crowds and jolting the Democrats awake from their slumber. The coverage in the mainstream press has been fawning. And free.
But the free ride is beginning to rankle those who see themselves as the arbiters between the people and the politicians. The media rapture might be over. Harris is under increasing pressure from media stars, editorial boards, and sundry opinion makers to grant interviews and answer questions. Enough with all the positive coverage, the fourth estate wants the real deal.
Was the mainstream/liberal press embarrassed into raising the question since the conservative/right-wing channels have repeatedly contrasted Harris’s absence with Donald Trump’s presence in the mediascape, whether for a rambling press conference or friendly encounters with Fox News anchors? Harris’s reluctance to find time to meet the press has become an issue and could potentially become a problem.
Access denied could become anger multiplied.
Here’s a warning from The Washington Post editorial board: “If she hopes to prevail, Ms. Harris needs to present her ideas. The media and public have legitimate questions, and she should face them. This is a political necessity — Mr. Trump is already turning her avoidance of the media into an attack line.”
That is indeed true. Trump has claimed Harris is afraid of press conferences because she is “not smart enough” to do one. Others say she is too smart to do one.
Trump’s media blitz, Harris’s silence
To drive the point home, Trump held a long, rambling news conference at Mar-a-Lago and conducted a two-hour “conversation” with Elon Musk on X on a variety of topics, which at one time had 1.2 million listeners. The Trump-Musk encounter was a bonanza of disjointedness, but the point that Trump is available was made to his followers. Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, appeared on three Sunday talk shows in rapid succession.
The Harris campaign’s response to all the hullaballoo about press interviews: Why spoil a good thing? As the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Media scrutiny, potential gaffes, and policy disputes will only complicate matters. She has equalised the race for the most part.
The Harris honeymoon with the people – minus the press – is making the Republicans nervous and Trump angrier. Deep down in their hearts, they know it’s not fear of the press, but a political strategy deployed by Harris. And she will likely follow it until she can’t. As John Stoehr, editor of The Editorial Board, a politics newsletter for “normal people,” said on X, “âælook how well she’s doing as a result” of avoiding the media.
The question is how long can Harris run on the “vibe”, the “joy”, and dance away the blues without addressing the many policy elephants in the room? After three weeks of gushing coverage, she is now inviting more questions about her platform.
But wait. There is no platform or manifesto – yet – on her campaign website, only bios, photos, and buttons to donate large and small amounts. Her move away from progressive policy positions such as a national ban on fracking or eliminating private health insurance has been conveyed through campaign officials. Harris no longer supports either.
But it seems the candidate doesn’t trust the media to be an honest broker on her policy evolution and will continue speaking to the voters directly for now. And she is finding support among Democrats and surrogates who say there’s no law that mandates a candidate must speak to reporters. A law there isn’t, but tradition there is, especially in democracies where the press in its role as a watchdog is meant to question candidates in the public interest.
Media’s misplaced priorities
But critics, some of them former journalists, say the media is broken, too obsessed with polls, and filled with narcissistic fools whose aim is gotcha questions to trap the candidate, not informing the people. For example, the mainstream press, including leading newspapers, failed to focus on Joe Biden’s record and highlight it during the early part of the election campaign, instead fixating on his age. He pulled the country out of the pandemic, reduced unemployment, avoided a recession, and restored Europe’s faith in America. Then came the Biden-Trump debate, and the rest is history.
Harris saw the severity with which the media went after the president. She has also seen the media roast her for having lower poll ratings than Biden’s and suggesting that he should replace her. There were many headlines in the second half of 2023 calling for her replacement.
David Ignatius, a prominent Washington Post columnist, wrote, “Harris has many laudable qualities, but the simple fact is that she has failed to gain traction in the country or even within her own party. There are many good alternatives.”
Many unanswered questions
There are other reasons for the trust gap between Harris and the press, starting with her rather underwhelming debut as VP and Biden’s key person to solve the border crisis. By the end of the first year in office, her staff was in turmoil and several aides left. The press coverage was correct, if not sympathetic, but her supporters blamed it on inherent racism and the difficulties a woman of colour faces.
But ignoring the press could come back to bite Harris. Besides, how else does she plan to disseminate her views to the voters, not all of whom are fixated on social media memes? They might want to read an in-depth interview or watch one to understand what her presidency might look like in terms of policy. The only issue on which Harris has been clear is abortion rights, and that comes through at her rallies.
But there’s no clarity on where Harris stands on key foreign policy issues. Would she support Ukraine and Israel to the same extent as the current administration? What would she do about the US rivalry with China? What does she really think about India and the partnership with New Delhi?
The questions are many but the answers are few – at least for now.
(Seema Sirohi is a senior journalist based out of Washington DC. She writes on foreign policy and has covered India-US relations for nearly three decades)
(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)