Progressives preach constantly about democracy and threats to it that they attribute to conservatives. But most are untroubled or even gleefully supportive of Vice President Kamala Harris’s decision to stiff the media since becoming the Democrats’ presidential nominee and the broader trend of sidestepping that Joe Biden popularized in his 2020 “basement campaign” and during his administration. Harris has stated that she intends to get an interview scheduled (not necessarily conducted) “before the end of the month.” Early voting in Pennsylvania—the most vital swing state—starts on September 16, so voters could start casting their ballots before Harris gets around to it. For the moment, her poll numbers are buoyant, and only conservatives seem to care that she’s avoiding the press in a way that no candidate has done before.
The Washington Post recently published an opinion piece arguing that Harris’s tactic of avoiding the press is “good strategy,” citing Biden’s successful avoidance tactics in 2020 and how he’s gotten away with giving very few press conferences and interviews as president. Harris doesn’t have to explain her recent policy reversals, the op-ed author wrote, because “anyone supporting her candidacy—and, let’s face it, that includes plenty of reporters—knows that quizzing Harris closely about her agenda risks helping Trump.” The New York Times published a news piece quoting a source who said that Harris is “wisely managing her time.” Another source, Democratic strategist James Carville, said, “Where is it written that you have to sit down for a press interview?”
Jeff Jarvis, a professor of journalism named one of the 100 most influential media leaders by the World Economic Forum at Davos, published a column he amplified on X insisting that Harris “doesn’t need the press.” “[Kamala Harris] and [Tim Walz] are in direct discourse with the people who matter: citizens,” he wrote. Voters have no opportunity to ask them questions, but in Jarvis’s world, it is enough that Harris’s would-be subjects get to hear her read from a teleprompter. In another tweet, Jarvis said that when Harris does grant an interview, it should not be given to the apparently too conservative New York Times (“F’em,” he says of the paper), but someone like MSNBC’s Joy Reid, Nicole Wallace, or Rachel Maddow, or late-night host Stephen Colbert—in other words, a left-wing partisan who could be trusted not to ask challenging questions.
Many who commented on Jarvis’s tweets agreed with him. It seems that many partisan Democrats are content to keep Harris functioning as an actress who reads scripts, rather than as a traditional candidate who subjects herself to challenging questions in interviews and press conferences. Clearly, many on the left are concerned that Harris won’t fare well in unscripted settings. But are their fears justified?
One only need watch Joe Biden’s recent softball interview with Robert Costa on CBS to get a preview of what the Democrats’ new star has to look forward to when and if she grants an interview. Many Americans may not realize it, but these days, interviews with powerful politicians are heavily negotiated beforehand. It’s common for news outlets to provide questions in advance and to scrap queries that the candidate dislikes.
It’s clear from watching the Biden interview on CBS that the questions were taste-tested or even drafted by Biden’s handlers in advance. Costa fed the president one cookie after another, teeing up several opportunities for Biden to sound off on the alleged threat to democracy that Donald Trump poses, asking him how he sees American democracy now, and whether he thinks that Trump will accept an election loss. (Answers: Yes, Trump is a “genuine danger to American security,” and no, he won’t accept an election loss. The days of “lowering the temperature” are over.)
Biden said that the critical issue for him in stepping aside was “maintaining this democracy.” When asked what he wants to be remembered for, he said it was for showing that “democracy can work.” With all the hyperbolic talk of democracy, Costa missed an obvious opening to ask Biden about his July 8 letter, in which he refused to step down, writing, “The voters—and the voters alone” could decide the party nominee. “How can we stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party?” the president asked. Why not ask Biden how he moved from that position to his present belief that he was saving democracy by stepping down?
Instead, Costa asked the outgoing president what his family said to him after he made his speech announcing his retirement (who cares?) and whether he was “thinking of Beau” (his son who died in 2015) when he spoke. He also introduced the irrelevant topic of the 2017 killing of a young woman by a white nationalist at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia—an apparent hand-off so that Biden could yet again accuse Trump of abetting racists.
If Harris ever deigns to sit for an interview, this is the kind of treatment that she can likely expect. Not exactly intimidating. No doubt her interlocutors will offer her chances to condemn Trump for questioning her blackness and J. D. Vance for his cat ladies remark, which the cat-lady infested mainstream media considers a far more serious issue than Harris’s refusal to explain her policy shifts.
It’s hard to fault Harris for her strategy. The media’s response to her stiff-arm has been to embrace her even more brazenly; it’s reminiscent of the old Morrissey song, “The More You Ignore Me, The Closer I Get.” Her reward for shunning an interview request from Time? A hagiographic cover story with such an attractive depiction of her that Trump said she looked a lot like his wife. When you avoid the media and still get 100 percent fawning coverage and keep climbing in the polls, what’s the incentive to change?
The last time she ran for president, Harris participated in five debates, staking out territory to the left of Elizabeth Warren and other progressive candidates before exiting the race at 2 percent in the polls. This time, Harris 2.0, queen of the switcheroo and beneficiary of zero primary votes, may subject herself to just one debate, on ABC News, whose corporate arm is overseen by a woman the New York Times describes as a close friend of hers. How much would she really need to prepare for that? In any case, a Harris interview could be riskier for the news outlet than for the candidate. Imagine the uproar if, for example, a CNN host grilled her seriously and caused her poll numbers to sink. The interviewer would become a pariah, perhaps even unemployable.
Most Republicans and Democrats have already made up their minds about Harris, so whatever she says now is irrelevant to them. But plenty of Independents who dislike Trump still aren’t sure if they buy the Harris makeover. They want to know what she’d do if elected. They’re unlikely to get much help from her campaign—or the media.
Democrats couldn’t care less, as long as she wins. But news consumers should be as wary of the press as Thomas Jefferson was in 1807, when he remarked, “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.”
Photo by Montinique Monroe/Getty Images