I know this is a Trump talking point, but honestly, Kamala Harris really needs to sit down for some interviews with the press. It's something we should expect from any presidential candidate.
I've cut her some slack because she became a candidate only a few weeks ago. But she's been vice president for more than three years and a top-rank politician for more than a decade before that. She should be able to handle an interview by now. And keep in mind that the longer she waits the riskier things get. As expectations mount so does the feeding frenzy, which means she'll be judged harshly on even the tiniest gaffes because that's all anyone has. To manage that, she needs to get going now and she needs to do multiple interviews so that no single one of them defines her.
Over the past few months Donald Trump has done serious sit-down interviews with Time, Businessweek, and the National Association of Black Journalists. That's in addition to friendly conversations with the likes of Elon Musk, Fox News, and whoever was allowed to attend his phony press conference. Harris should (at least) follow suit.
We're sorry Mr. Drum, but at present we don't have any openings for Op-Ed Page Columnist. We appreciate your interest, and we hope you will contact us again later should any opportunities arise!
(Just out of curiosity, is there any evidence AT ALL that this matters AT ALL to anyone except the MSM and the commentariat? Any? And if not, why does she "need" to do this? And conversely, what happens if she does, and some partial remark is taken out of context and blown into Serious Questions and Shadows and Clouds and whatnot, which is absolutely SOP for the MSM? Why on Earth should she do this now? Honestly ...)
Agreed. The MSM is always out to get a "scalp." Note that our vaunted political media was, behind closed doors, delighted to have gotten revenge on Hillary for not getting the respect they felt they were owed by the Clintons in the 1990s.
Now they're gearing up to do the same to Kamala Harris.
You can bet if Biden had granted the NY Times an interview it would have been question after question about his age. If he had tried to talk about our amazing economy they would have replied BUT INFLATION!! — because the Times just knows that international inflation was all Biden’s fault with all that reckless spending. And Larry Summers said so.
I am betting Kamala will mostly get process, style over substance questions (do you really think joy is enough of a strategy?) and/or a bunch of questions about the nasty things Trump says about her.
I wish I could find the video of Rachel Maddow’s 2016 SC primary interviews of Hillary, Bernie and Martin O’Malley. It was held in a pub and each candidate was interviewed separately. I think she asked questions the audience had suggested and she challenged each with criticisms that had been made of them but it was very respectful. No gotchas but no softballs either.
I learned a lot about each candidate more than I have from any other interview or debate and I follow politics pretty closely. And I am so old I remember Eisenhower.
The Beltway press turned on Hillary — and Bill — with a vengeance after she refused an invitation from the leader of their social circle,Queen Bee Sally Quinn. Quinn had invited Hillary to meet so Sally could advise her on how to fit in with the Kool Kids at Beltway High. (Although I doubt accepting that invite would have been enough to overcome their disdain for rubes from Arkansas.)
Quinn and company defended Ken Starr because he attended her soirées. When Starr finally got some dirt on Clinton by he stumbling on thevdalliance with Monica, she was beyond appalled. All her crowd followed her lead — Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd were prime examples of outrage over the besmirching of the White House. All of them not only worshipped the ground the far more promiscuous and reckless JFK walked on, those hypocrites knew Sally Quinn had risen to her position of influence by seducing her much older married boss Ben Bradlee when she was a lowly twenty-something cub reporter, Bradlee divorced his wife and married Sally. In effect Sally was a successful Monica. (This was public knowledge because Bradlee had told all in his memoir. ) Apparently adultery only appalled that group if hicks were committing it.
I would guess that besides it being better for up to now to just ride the good vibes through the DNC convention, she also needed to think through specifics of her policies, especially how they may differ from Biden.
She may even actually answer the questions asked, though most questions will likely be responding the the slew of bull shit accusations Il Duce throughs at the her and the wall on a daily basis.
Venture to guess how many questions will be about Biden dropping out, Walz's 24 years of service (assistant coach vs coach / weapons of war) and how undemocratic her selection was.
Yes. The type of person currently on the fence between voting Trump and voting Harris is deeply, deeply obsessed with learning about their policy differences.
Aren't Harris and Walz doing an interview with Dana Bash on Thursday?
Yes they are! And let's hold our breaths waiting for these illuminating questions.
1. Governor Walz, "questions have been raised" about your truthfulness regarding your military service. How do you respond?
2. Vice President Harris, you've shifted many of the positions you took back in 2019 regarding defunding the police, fracking, and other things. Some have claimed this shows you don't have any core beliefs. How do you respond?
3. Vice President Harris, polls have shown that many Americans feel "Bidenomics" has left them struggling. As a part of the administration, how do you respond?
Etc.
"Ms. Harris, former President Trump has said he doesn't think a WOMAN can stand up to America's enemies like China, and that she simply doesn't have the STRENGTH to keep America safe. How do you, a WOMAN, respond?"
"Mr. Walz, you and others refer to you as 'Coach' Walz, but you were only an ASSISTANT coach, isn't that right? Do you think you've been dishonest, and if not why not?"
Vice President Harris, does your husband’s relationship with the nanny hold any implications for what type of first gentleman he would be?
The media whining two days ago: When is Harris finally going to sit down for a press interview? Is she scared of us?
Harris yesterday: Tim and I are sitting down with CNN for a press interview.
The media whining today: Why isn't Harris sitting down for a solo press interview? Is she scared of us?
You cannot make the media whiners stop whining. They always will move the goalposts. Because they are media whiners and they only know how to whine.
And keep in mind that the longer she waits the riskier things get. As expectations mount so does the feeding frenzy, which means she'll be judged harshly on even the tiniest gaffes because that's all anyone has. To manage that, she needs to get going now and she needs to do multiple interviews so that no single one of them defines her.
Shorter Drum: She needs to start providing lots more opportunities for gaffes and pinocchios before the MSM has to just use the gaffes and pinocchios they already have (or already have manufactured for her) instead.
Me personally? I think she’s doing just fine speaking directly to the American people and doesn’t need media at all. She’ll never get a fair shake from the people who’ve all but said out loud that they hope Trump wins, which includes basically all paid media.
Sidebar: for about 150 years or so we had lots of presidents not give interviews to the press. The idea of doing so didn’t become a thing until radio or television were invented. Perhaps the internet and its ability to allow candidates to speak directly to hundreds of millions of people have obliterated the “need” for a TV interview? I would think Kevin “AI is going to take all our jobs” Drum would consider that perhaps technology is already well into completely replacing the job of political reporter.
Yes. The media, by definition, are intermediaries, and in the realm of politics one function they provide in our democracy is a platform for political leaders and the people to communicate with one another. When Kamala Harris is talking directly to the American people, she's doing what a political leader needs to do. The idea that she needs to answer to the press is a conceit that media people may believe but it's not a real thing. You see this with town halls, when actual voters ask questions that matter to them, and politicians respond. It is a world away from the questions and concerns of the press. Media folk pretend they are the (unelected) fourth branch of government whose duty it is to weigh in on matters in the court of public opinion with their considered and binding verdicts. It's all horseshit. The whole charade needs to end. It won't be easy but Harris understands the job.
Will Bunch talks about the decline of media this week:
Irrelevance. In fear of going to the bathroom and losing their seats in the nosebleed section! That's today's media, and they did it to themselves.
She already agreed to do CNN before you posted this.
Donald Trump has done serious sit-down interviews
a serious interview would require serious, thoughtful responses
trump has never done a serious interview in his life
But "Donald Trump has done serious sit-down interviews" is pretty funny. Trump does try to put on pretensions of being serious. I suppose he is serious in the sense he is working on feeding the needs of his insatiable narcissism.
The hilarious part of the double standard is: let's say Kamala does what Kevin Drum wants and starts doing lots of MSM interviews. And let's say she goes into them intent on delivering the same "seriousness" Kevin credits Trump giving them, by which I mean "lying and bullshitting constantly," only doing so to appeal to liberals and centrists instead of Trump's lies and bullshit "seriously" catering to conservatives.
Does anyone here think Kevin - and the other MSM pundits bleating for MOAR INTERVIEWS!!! - will credit Kamala for doing "serious sit-down interviews"? Hell no. They'll then lambast her for lying and bullshitting, if not shamelessly pandering to her voters.
There is NO UPSIDE to doing "serious sit-down" interviews for Kamala. If she does them as "seriously" as Kevin says Trump does them, she'll be trashed by pundits like Kevin. If she does them as seriously as Hillary or Al Gore or even Joe Biden (2020) actually did theirs, she'll be yawned at by the media and then ignored by the media as they chase after whatever shiny object Trump throws out next.
The era of "presidents sit down and seriously talk with media gatekeepers without lying or bullshitting the entire time" has been over for the Republicans since at least 2016, and it's time for the expectation of them to end for the Dems too. I know Kevin and the other MSM pundits love these chats, but honestly, the country held many elections in which the voters never heard a single word from either candidate before casting their vote, and the country can move on into an era where technology makes it possible for candidates to speak directly to voters, skipping the former media gatekeepers.
My thoughts exactly. How can Kevin with a straight face say Trump did a serious interview with the Black Journalists Assn? His alleged press conferences weren't really press conferences. If rambling incoherently no matter what the question was counts I guess he has answered a question.
“Trump” and “serious interview” do not ever belong in the same sentence. Ever.
Media is champing about it because they want sound bites. Don’t think anyone else is screaming for an interview.
But if the media folks complain about it long enough it turns into a “thing”. Especially Faux Noise is squawking about it because it’s something they can criticize her on. That’s all it is.
Sheesh.
We have interviews coming up and a debate (assuming Mango Mussolini doesn’t chicken out) so there is plenty of time to get more details.
bbleh...thank you, that was so very well written, I both smiled and laughed, I also have to agree with Austin and others...let the debate be her signature interview for the American people...if she comes off very well in the Debate...she should do what Austin suggests. Best Wishes, always, to Kamala.
PS It is to be witnessed in real time that for all of the outright lies, stupidity and gaffs in Trump's interviews...The MSM is giving him a pass...so piss on them.
She should answer questions from the press as soon as Trump answers such questions truthfully instead of recycling lies from his stump speech.
As Drum correctly notes, Harris has been a public figure for more than a decade. We already know who she is and what her core beliefs are. It is not clear to me what purpose would be served by an interview or press conference, other than to provide grist for the media mill.
Big media will ask stupid horserace/gotcha questions.
Specialist media not so much. Foreign policy media for foreign policy, etc. Housing, economics, military, environment, specialty publications abound.
She can stick to those interviews, they actually might inform the public. No one can complain she is not telling the public what they need to know to vote.
The problem with this notion is that the MSM isn't looking for good answers to intelligent questions. They're looking for a narrative to sell in the ongoing reality show, "Election 2024." If that involves juicy little gaffes and missteps in interviews, they'll run with that. It's whatever delivers eyeballs to advertisers, which is why they loved Trump for so long, and continue to work tirelessly to tidy up his rambling, incoherent monologues for public consumption. Harris has ample experience with how those marginally reality-based narratives can be used against her, and the NYT is basically becoming just an outlet for their own grievances, as far as access, so let them stew.
I was hoping the Harris campaign, as adroit as it has been so far, might have figured out an alternative approach to media relations, perhaps one involving a few faux press conferences like Trump just did at Mar-a-Lago, but otherwise restricting interviews and media access to nontraditional outlets - influencers, podcasts, etc. One that holds (well-moderated) public Q&As on social media outlets other than the former Twitter or anything run by Zuckerberg. Basically, steer into the ongoing skid of the collapse of traditional media, and invent a new kind of media relationship. That could be interesting, and if there's any presidential campaign that has ever shown the potential to develop something along those lines, it's Harris'.
I really don't see why this matters. If she does it, that's fine, but this race is very different than any other I've experienced. The Never-Trumpers are not going to change their minds, and neither are we. The people whose minds haven't been made up or are otherwise persuadable to switch, can tune into the debate to hear an adversarial exchange and her ideas.
I see this more as a self-serving journalistic thing. Is journalism really going to 'splain to us that their job is to help us become smarter voters? Really? I want to slap the face of any asshole cocky enough to push that bullshit.
Sure. But there's been no feeding frenzy around Trump's series of massive gaffes. It's just assumed to happen and so not worth mentioning.
Other than the media and journalists themselves is there anyone who seems at all concerned about this?
Literally no-one will be better informed and anyone who has seen a presidential interview knows this.
Irrelevancy for former gatekeepers is a terrifying thing for the former gatekeepers.
Maybe she ought to do some interviews, but why not do them with liberal wonks like Rachel Maddow or Ezra Klein? MAGA can bitch all they like, but the reality is such interviews would be highly substantive, so let them pound sand.
Maddow is fine. She has a big audience of people who vote and people who organize to get others to vote.
But no way is Harris going to sit down with Klein, who led the media campaign to get Biden out and get an "open convention" to specifically bypass the obvious alternative of Harris herself. He deserves to be on her shit list. I'd give him no quarter if I were her. Besides, his audience is not the audience she's trying to reach.
Walz did sit down with Klein before he was the pick.
Nothing more to be gained with either talking to him now.
Klein would be an interesting interview for her. So would Yglesias. Or Jennifer Rubin. Or Lawrence O'Donnell. Or Joy Reid. Or Phillip Bump. There are a lot of smart liberals out there who could get into the weeds on policy. Also, vast swaths of the liberal establishment were leery of a Kamala coronation in the immediate hours after Biden announced his withdrawal. Few foresaw she would wrap up the nomination so rapidly. I give Klein a pass on that one, in light of his prescience for many, many months on the desirability of Joe's stepping down. A lot of Democrats (not naming names!) were in denial about this even after the debate debacle. Also, one has to balance the attributes of the individual journalist in question with the credibility of the outlet, and, like it or not, The New York Times is still The New York Times. (Which reminds me: I hope Harris/Walz don't eschew print journalism entirely in favor of broadcast/streaming).
Chris Hayes, on the other hand, wouldn't have his calls returned if if I'm Kamala's campaign manager.
She should just call in and complain about random shit like the felon does on Fox.
"Over the past few months Donald Trump has done serious sit-down interviews with Time, Businessweek, and the National Association of Black Journalists. "
Oooh, look, Drum does poker faced black comedy! I didn't know the pedantic old guy had it in him. (He's five-six years younger than me IIRC, but he sure feels older.)
As others have pointed out more seriously, Drumpf has never done a serious interview in his benighted life and these were mostly sit-down versions of his Festivus-style airing of grievance. The most notorious, of course, was the "serious interview" with the NABJ in which, after a lengthy delay because Drumpf objected to being fact checked, the serious interviewee accused the interviewers of being rude and nasty, stated that Harris had only recently turned black, and was hustled off the stage a half hour early by his campaign.
And this is the less objectionable portion of this stupid post. Why in the world should Harris, who suffers from the ridiculous and obvious media double standard of coverage that (whether intentional or not) objectively puts a big fat thumb on the scale for Drumpf and Republicans, submit to media demands except on her own terms?
Kevin's statement is perfectly factual. Trump, in fact, has done multiple interviews. It becomes a campaign issue for Harris/Walz if the media chooses not to ignore the contrast with the Democratic nominee but instead reports on it. Which is why they're relenting. Believe me, the Harris campaign wouldn't do any interviews if they thought this course of (in)action were consistent with maximizing their odds of victory. Just like Trump wouldn't debate if he thought likewise. Campaigns do things to win, and the Harris people realized refusal to be interviewed might hurt them.
sorry kevin, but when has trump ever given a serious interview?
I think she should do an interview with John Oliver and offer it to the NYT.
🎯
Not a bad idea.
I think she could gain more from an interview with Fox than with the NY Times.
If she wants to go that route she outta try Rogan. Fox viewers are overwhelmingly committed MAGA. Joe Rogan actually reaches a lot of persuadables. Plus, he's dumb as rocks on public policy and politics*, so I don't see much of an ambush danger. Murdoch, on the other hand, actually employs some skilled journalists.
*The dude is a kazillionaire, so I'm not suggesting he's stupid in general (far from it). He just seems highly uninformed on policy/politics.
Bah. I'd have said that she did an amazing job as candidate hitting the proverbial ground running. She got out there as Biden had not, with event after event, actually meeting people in swing states. That had to be a priority over interviews, especially so late becoming a candidate.
Meanwhile Trump doesn't even do interviews, just call-ins to friendly audiences like Fox to rant and rave, repetitively but way off-script, on his own incoherent terms. And almost from the moment the press echoed the GOP setup as usual, for Harris, she set up an interview!
Let's face what this really is about, beside the MSM as echo chamber for the right. It's about assuring them that they're privileged insiders and that we learn whatever we're going to learn through them. By the same token, I agree she needed to do this, for that very reason. MSM bias so turned off Hillary Clinton that she grew more stand-offish-ish to them in response, which only fed their bias (emails!). Harris is playing this just right.
Meanwhile Trump doesn't even do interviews, just call-ins to friendly audiences like Fox to rant and rave...
The National Association of Black Journalists wasn't a friendly audience.
The idea that Donald Trump has done serious sit-down interviews is preposterous. Gaslighting a wannabe journalist interviewer too naive to notice when the gas is being lit is not a serious sit-down interview.
I've suspected she would do a prepared speech on policy. An interview is a bit riskier since you never know what the questions might be, or how the media may "interpret" your statements.
We know Trump. He will let a House controlled by Republicans do whatever they want: tax cuts for the rich, no help for Ukraine, and little else. Remember, we're talking policy, not Trump grifting.
If she does a real interview on policy, then it would be fine. There may be more people who would watch than if she were to only do a prepared speech.
Is it a good idea? I think it can be. First, a goal of either a speech or interview on policy is to clarify for people (those who care) what she would be trying to accomplish. That could affect Congressional races, business responses, and it would generally inform the world what to expect out of America if she's president.
Not everything has to be warfare by political means. Sometimes it's good to just inform the people. You remember "the people", in "We the People" ?
FOH with this offensive gatekeeping bullshit.
She's doing one anyway, but she doesn't need to.
Nope. Wrong again, Kevin. Her poll numbers disprove your niche theory.
Tell me your understanding of the culture hasn't moved past 1999 without saying your understanding of the culture hasn't moved past 1999.
Kevin is old like me, so I get where he is coming from. There was a time when the media were useful in reachin a large audience, and also conferred a certain amount of legitimacy on those they interviewed and profiled. But that era is long gone.
Harris has chosen to open her campaign up to a large number of online influencers, and I can state with complete confidence that the average influencer is more serious in their approach to journalism, and more committed to values like balance and truth than the average Times or Post reporters who is so thoroughly corrupted by 20 years Republican "working the refs" that the prospect of true objectivity fills them with an existential dread.
I cannot think of a single mainstream reporter who has "earned" the right to sit down with a Democratic candidate by covering the campaign so far honestly and fairly. Harris should not reward their shameful shilling for her opponent.
Has Trump ever been forced to address the evidence in his fraud conviction or his espionage case? And I don't mean "has he been allowed to blather on about how unfair it is?".
Has he been forced to address his lies about what happened in the attack on January 6 2021 and what he did?
If so, I'd love to see it. If not, he hasn't faced a serious interview. These inconsistencies really have to be cleared up.
Wow, you just wrote an item about the absolute failure of Vox to get its facts straight with regards to the Zuckerberg revelations then followed it up with criticism of Kamala Harris for not giving MSM any interviews yet. 90% of Americans do not give a single shit about what MSM has to tell them either because they don't watch the news or because those who do are smart enough to know MSM no longer prioritizes truth or facts over revenue. Can't really blame them since they're all money pits and have no choice if they want to survive but Harris doesn't owe them anything. MSM is not looking out for voters' interests. You should know this.
That thing you're not worried about (this whole media clusterthing)? It's enough of a big deal to Kevin Drum to muster up a vaguely energetic post about it.
Agree with a lot said here in that MSM doesn’t matter anymore. They’ve lost significance. Harris is playing this well. There was no need for her to run out and do 10 interviews up to this point. The only need would have been to appease journalists but they’re never going to be satisfied with her choices. They can sit and spin.
Yglesias and Chait are right about this: Harris ought to schedule a fair number of interviews. It's unwise to book only one or two, because this magnifies the importance of each event:
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1828545540126097688
This is wrong, but its a great example of this being a no-win scenario that is designed for Harris to fail.
No matter what you do, the old gatekeepers will move the goalpost and insist that the new problem is actually this other thing that you havent done to benefit them.
If she does schedule multiple interviews, that will be the new scandal.
Things aren't quite so conspiratorial. Seems common sense to me that doing multiple interviews reduces the chances that any single one is high stakes event.
Anyway, I don't think you're take is correct, but if you're right, your beef is with the Harris campaign for being stupid enough to schedule the CNN interview. They should've just stonewalled the media indefinitely, correct?
But more likely is: they're not stupid, and they realized a political problem (accusations of zero media access) was brewing, and they decided to deal with it by doing an interview. I think Harris should follow up with a few softish ones: Colbert, Maddow, one or two others. She's smart AF, and she's been in politics a long time. Let the public see the contrast between a politician in the prime of her intelligence and effectiveness—and the ghoulish infant nominated by the GOP. I welcome the scrutiny.
Harris has done 80 interviews already this year. That's roughly one every three days.
Five weeks ago, she suddenly took over the reins of the Biden campaign, and then had to plunge into preparations for the DNC. The DNC has just wrapped up and now she's got an interview scheduled.
If a month from now she hasn't done any more, then maybe I'll start paying attention to this particular complaint, but right now it comes across as yet another Republican effort to work the refs. This is one thing Republicans know how to do very well -- find a complaint that a) appears superficially reasonable and b) appeals to the media's self-interest.