C’mon Chris. She’s had 3 weeks to take over the campaign, hire staff, oversee the vetting of several candidates for VP, and then introduce herself and Walz to the country., AND, oh yes, prepare for a convention where she will accept the nomination not 5 weeks after she became the candidate.
There is a thing called “momentum” - and one of the things you don’t do is get in the way of that. She will do her interviews etc - but given the results so far, I think she has been doing EXACTLY what she should be doing.
This is my point! Your argument is that she’s winning so she doesn’t need to talk to the press! But that overlooks the previously stated Democratic belief that talking to the press is absolutely essential!
No, that is NOT my argument. My argument is give her a minute to breathe, for crying out loud. The pressers are needed and will come. but how many hours are in the 3 weeks she’s had, and she’s had a LOT to do to get this up and rolling.
I think Kamala is handling it just right. She and Walz are appearing in person so voters can assess their personalities and characters. I’m sure that they’re discussing policies behind the scenes. It is critically important that they agree on well thought out policies that Kamala can explain in interviews. Setting policy is not an overnight exercise, and there are dozens of issues to cover. When hers are finely tuned, *then* is the time to sit for press conferences and interviews.
I find it hard to believe how much you insist on your demonstrably wrong opinion.
We could list the amount of time needed to do to take over the campaign, but I think we all know it is a lot. On the other hand, saying that the amount if time needed for a press conference is the time dedicated to the press conference is downright ridiculous. What's concerning to me that for for you, a seasoned reported, it should be blatantly obvious.
I was working in communications at the Government sector in Europe; preparing a leader for an unremarkable press event (talking about a familiar topic in front of a small and friendly audience) takes like 30-60 minute time out of the leader's day. Kamala Harris needs to be prepared for a barrage of questions on a national stage; several of her answers (like the policy positions of her future presidency) are still being formulated; she is running a short campaign with zero margins for error. Preparing for a large-scale press conference, especially considering Harris's schedule, will take weeks.
On the top of that, the media and the public do not treat both candidates equally on the publick appearances. If I just look at their press performance, Trump is a habitual liar and a bully with the press, and can get away with blatant falsehoods, outside rudeness and obvious ignorance. Any one of these could generate terrabytes of adversarial content on TikTok against Harris if she behaved that way. Trump is expected to be Trump; Harris is expected to be perfect.
Your stubborn argument that the "talking to the press is the right thing to do" is abstract to the point when it does not make any sense. It may be correct on a policy-based campaign when different ideologies crash in a noble battle, but we are very far from that. Harris and the Democrats considers Trump to be an existential threat; voters give zero fucks whether she gives a press conference or an interview. (The majority of them do care about women's right to choose, for example.) She will do it when the time is right for her, when she can maneuver competently against the adversarial environment. Meanwhile, she will find another way to give her policy message to the voters.
It’s easy to talk to “the press” (especially when 95% of those Trump talks are very friendly cheerleaders and NOT “the press” that is a “fundamental piece of American democracy”) or conduct a press conference if he literally spews lies with virtually every utterance.
The scrutiny for accuracy is exponentially more strict for VP Harris than Trump.
So, it’s not simply “She could easily make an hour or even less to do an interview.”.
It’s the case that one word out of place will generate days of negative attention.
Chris should know this, yet, he chooses to ignore reality.
All those tough internal staff meetings she’d have to postpone by 10 minutes…the world would end. The attack line is coming (regardless of your political persuasion beliefs to the contrary) if you cant deal with the press how do you handle Xi, Putin, etc. Fair or unfair, the bite may be bigger than the bark when it does and there will be nobody to blame but herself and the sycophants. She needs to just flip that narrative too and soon.
Yeah come on Chris! She’s not legally required to tell you anything! Everyone should vote for her because she’s not Trump. That’s all you need to know. It’s just like the affordable care act, you have to pass it before you know what’s in it!
Chris I know you and the other MAGA crowd are frustrated that Harris is doing very well and you all can smell defeat in the pipeline. Yes, she got zero votes and yet she is the Nominee of the Democrats and over 80% of Democrats are happy with that choice. She's going to talk to the Press and take questions from them . It's not on your timeline though but on her own timeline. Just relax and be patient. Meanwhile though, Chris , keep promoting Donald Trump in the name of "analyzing" his speeches and "interviews"
Dude. Do you even read what I write? Because unlike most people in the comments who are thoughtful in their criticisms, yours is the same thing every day no matter what I write. I literally dedicated my entire day to a breakdown of Trump’s interview Musk! Which was not terribly positive for him!
Dude. I, for one, read what you write. Some snarky comments on transcripts. Not an article about "What Would Happen if This Guy Got to the Oval Office and Would be So Layz that He Would Lead All The Governing to J. D. Vance.". You created two videos about Trump obsessing about size but only one about Project 2025. Maybe there is a slight difference in the weight of these two things.
Chris, why in the world do you waste "my entire day" to a breakdown of Trump's interview?? Anything newsworthy in it was reported last night. As you brag, you're the only one who does this. Maybe you should wonder why that is and stop wasting your time and the time of anyone who bothers to read it. There is no "there" there.
Chris ,of course , I do read your posts and I do enjoy reading them but just don't always agree with them. I don't consider your "analysis" of Trump's sit down discussion with Musk as objective and critical. You just made some comments about Trump's assertions
I may not agree with Chris' perspective on some things, but to name call and denigrate his work by calling him a Trump/Maga supporter totally misses the analysis and research he does.
Well, we agree on many things, Dr., but this is not one of them.
Chris, for better or worse, truly *believes* that he’s being “objective” and “unbiased”, and I appreciate that he is sincerely *trying* to do so.
I think he misses the boat, maybe even frequently, but it’s not because he supports or believes MAGA crap.
Though I have a strong sense of humor and appreciate writers that do too, I think that where Chris errs in his “xx Things Trump Said” columns is that he leans more toward comedy (funny memes & GIFs, etc) and less on substantial analysis of the issues with what Trump says.
And in terms of being “unbiased”, we would both agree that a breakdown of a Harris-Walz stump speech, to fully understand what they’re saying and promoting, would be appreciated as well. We said so when Biden was the nominee and we’d like to see the same now that we have the Harris-Walz ticket.
why are you even on here? Are you a person, a troll, or a bot? Either way, you're annoying. Talk about fools...maybe if Trump would close his yap once in awhile instead of spewing lies every day we'd all be better off. He speaks out everyday and it's a shit show. Go away.
I think you anger people when you make insulting and baseless comments. No unbiased person who watched Harris grill Barr, or Kavenaugh, or Sessions could accuse her of being unable to speak without a teleprompter. So if you're trying to get an adverse reaction, job well done. If you're attempting to make a serious comment, you have validated the Lincoln aphorism you cited.
You are totally discounting ALL the awful interviews over the last 3 1/2 years, very convenient. “Look kids you can see the moon with your own eyes” (paid actors btw) numerous examples could be sighted, it’s all perspective. Folks certainly can agree to disagree, the rage is troubling, it’s just politics, cmon man!
It is really delicious that Chris brings up“what aboutism” so he can shoot it down since he does a good job of tearing down Trump’s press conference and other media answers.
It is exactly because the answers, whatever they are, will be torn down by pundits and reporters looking for stories that a smart person doesn’t let the press tell them when and where to be interviewed. If come Election Day she still hasn’t been interviewed or held a press conference and is winning then we should consider her brilliant. It isn’t as if she isn’t describing her position on issues. For now it is a cry of desperation by the media to get something on her to make it an issue that she doesn’t play by their “rules”. Boo hoo, she’s doing great without talking to the press but talking to the people. If she didn’t talk,hold rallies, it would be different but asking her to stop what’s working is naive
Man, I think you do a great job, but you should stop it with the take about Harris needing to do more with the press right now. She will, eventually. Perhaps next week, in conjunction with the convention. I don’t know, but it will happen. She has been in the race only three weeks, she has been busy standing up her campaign and barnstorming swing states, and she has taken some questions from the press (but, according to you, not enough).
Thing is, it is *August.* Nobody except you and the rest of the press care about her taking questions right now. Most people are at the beach or taking several days somewhere else where they just aren’t paying attention to the election. Soon she will sit down for interviews, and then no one will remember or care that for a few weeks she didn’t.
Chris, I have disagreed with you on the Harris access to press issue before. I think you are dead wrong not because she shouldn't sit down with the press but because it makes no sense. All the reporters will do is ask questions about Trump. I refer you to a post on this substack by Heather Cox Richardson. It was posted on August 9 and the last 2 paragraphs of the post sums it up nicely. Harris approached reporters on the tarmac and the only questions were about what Trump said. Look at all the money they are spending on advertising and social media where they don't have to field questions about the other guy. The problem is not the campaign it is the reporters who insist on covering an election on the wrong terms.
How do you know what they will ask? I am sure some will ask about Trump! But others will ask about her flip flops on policy. Still others will ask about her plans if she elected.
Hey Chris, as stated in my earlier post, I think you have a point, but it doesn't hold much weight. But I commend you for staking out ground you know will displease some and for defending your position. If I wanted to hear only affirming views, I'd just mutter to myself. (I do that too, but you get my drift.)
How do we know what the press will ask? C’mon Chris! The press, especially the political press, will ask whatever questions are necessary to drive the most clicks. That is it. The press is a business, not a public good.
Additionally, the body of evidence suggests that the American people just don’t care about policy.
If I could believe that the press would actually ask Harris about expanding the AMA, long-term debt and deficits, our role in NATO, and other serious topics, then I might agree with you. But the press has shown no such inclination because those topics get no traction with American readers.
So why should Harris play by their rules?
The only reason that she should give an interview is to blunt the line of attack that she doesn’t give interviews. But she doesn’t owe the press anything.
Agreed 💯! IF they asked substantial questions, good! However, modern media is stuck on clickbait (see also some of Chris Cillizza’s headlines) as they try to figure out the change in business models and save their companies.
Chris writing this Substack column, given that he and others were laid off from CNN due to “cost cutting measures”, is the perfect example of how far the mighty newspapers and networks have fallen…
Wait, don’t sit down with the press because they ask questions about what your opponent said even though your entire campaign is talking about what your opponent says and does? That makes absolutely zero sense.
This. The media is the problem not the solution. Their appalling behavior needs investigating. They should not be entitled to anything. Why on earth do they think that?
I hear what you are saying Chris, but I think what you miss is that this is not a level playing field. She’s running against someone who has broken all norms of politics and of the presidency when he held it.
When the mainstream media begins covering Trump’s clear cognitive issues, then I think you can press Kamala for reporters questions and interviews.
Exactly. Trump didn't even bother to debate his GOP primary candidates because he felt like he didn't have anything to gain. Was the press clamoring for him to take part?
When you wrote about this on Friday, I left what I think was an extremely patient and thoughtful comment (it's the top one, you don't even have to scroll to read it) respectfully disagreeing with you. And now you've written this. So now I'm going to be a little less patient:
What *you* are doing here is whataboutism. Not what Harris is doing. What *you* are doing.
She has been a candidate for three weeks. That's it. And no, she didn't just inherit everything from Biden. That's minimizing what an accomplishment it was to step in to this position, to staff it up, to come up with a campaign strategy, vet a running mate, and tour every swing state. It's frankly offensive. You're better than that.
I'm not going to get on you for this post. You are in journalism and doing what is in your blood. I greatly appreciate the job you do, how you do it, the decision to stay in the business when it was a very tough time for you personally. Thank you for doing it.
I'm not going to disagree with you. Being open with the media is a great thing.
But on this one, I am with Kamala. When she is ready to speak to the media, she'll do it. Whatever her reasons, whether it is to get better up to speed on the issues, or anything else, I'm (and millions of others) giving her a pass.
I do think the media has a false sense of self-importance. I hate that the average American, on both sides of the aisle, don't have a high opinion on the news media. That is dangerous and self-destructive to our democracy. I'm most worried about the loss of news media in small communities across the land. Every small newspaper that ceases to publish is one less barrier between corruption and the people.
Sadly, we need Kamala to win so badly that we'll wait to see her go round with the media.
Respectfully, Chris, the country didn't seem to give a rat's ass for democracy when Joe Biden was out there campaigning on preserving it in light of the threat Trump poses. So perhaps the voters don't and are not going to care about "doing the right thing for democracy" when it comes to how Harris is running her campaign?
I mean, ultimately the voters will decide whether or not to penalize her for not giving the media its normal, expected role in sorting everything out. A role, can we agree, in which it has not exactly covered itself in glory since, well, maybe since the 1970s when Rupert Murdoch bought the NY Post? Given what that same media did to Sanders, did to Clinton, certainly tried to do to Biden, is it any wonder that, if Team Harris can see a media-lite path to victory, she wouldn't be in any great hurry to show her carotid arteries to the teeth of that beast?
You can make all sorts of good points about how democracy usually does or should work (one of which is that it should not include the thumbs of Elon Musk or Timothy Mellon on the scales), but in this case the voters will have the final say, democratically. If they don't like being less than fully informed by the legacy gotcha press, they always have the option of voting for Trump -- about whom they know everything they would ever need to know.
Have you thought she never in Hell thought she would be running for President and didn't have her own position papers or policy positions veted out. That takes time especially with all that was on her plate. So should she go out before doing deep dives on these or take some time to put them in her plank at the Democratic Convention. For her time frame the need is to be competent and thorough not meet the press's time table of feelinh relavent. Three months for that.
At the end of the day, this is really the bottom line.
If I’m advising Harris, I tell her to put off doing any press conferences which are most likely going to generate negative headlines.
She’s riding a wave of positivity.
No reason to do anything to crash that wave.
You made a comment also about “winning at any cost.” It’s my opinion that Democrats generally don’t take that approach while Republicans do and therefore self-handicap themselves.
Last thought…
There’s a scene in Ridley Scott’s “Kingdom of Heaven” where one character tells another that someday you may wish you had done a little bad so that you later can do a greater good. I see that as analogy to Harris not doing any press conferences at this time.
Take a look at the ratings of the traditional media’s trustworthiness when you get a chance. You vastly overestimate the average voter’s interest in watching a gaggle of hacks hurling gossip and innuendo like they’re on a trading floor 10 minutes before the closing bell. The pressers that you deem so critical are almost always a national embarrassment as reporters with minimal qualifications foist their biases and desperation for attention on the citizenry.
No one is saying that “the media” is NOT a “fundamental piece of American democracy”. It most certainly is.
But whining about no interviews or press conferences (only three weeks into an historically unusual campaign) and six days before the start of the DNC is foolish at best, an arrogant self-important, self-serving hissy fit at worst.
Yes, “the media” IS a “fundamental piece of American democracy” but it collectively does not dictate how democracy unfolds.
I’d argue that the subjective behavior of the US media has disqualified them from being a fundamental piece of democracy they once were. I’m not saying they can’t be again. But much needs to change.
And, sadly, the media no longer is. As another poster noted, the media certainly is self-important and dedicated primarily to supposed “gotcha” coverage that gets eyeballs and clicks. But — again sadly, it just doesn’t fulfill an essential purpose any longer as it can’t be trusted not to distill everything through whatever prism that serves its own purposes….
Embedded within your piece is the reason why Harris should completely ignore the media. They aren’t honest brokers. Are probably corrupt and being paid by the Trump campaign in some instances. Only too willing to publish Hillary’s hacked documents they decide this time to hide Trump’s. They abuse polling to drive public opinion. They obsess on stories which are misleading but drive advertising revenue. The idea that democracy requires Harris to give them the attention they are asking for only works if they remain objective. Which they clearly aren’t. Biden’s refusal to grant the NYT an interview clearly caused them to print every negative story they could about him. So much so, the NYT pitchbot was created to mock their folly. Harris needs to tell the media to fuck off.
Give her a minute for God’s sake. You aren’t the only 45 fact checker, CNN does it regularly, and if your paid subscription number is accurate (and I am one of them) you are being well-paid for your fact checking. Look for policy in her acceptance speech Thursday and then game-on. You chose to create a pay-only firewall, I did it reluctantly for facts, not whining about a three week campaign when 45 is hunkered down hiding. How about coverage of why the Bozeman rally was two hours late? Someone else got the scoop that they were delinquent on Bozeman airport payments from a past rally. Where is your coverage of that little morsal of proof of how horrible he is - plus all of the unpaid bills to 2016 and 2020 rally host communities. Did that compare to Butler PA’s security failure?
The right thing to do for democracy? Are you kidding? With a media that seems bent on soft balling Trump to another presidency?
The threat to democracy is not Harris not doing interviews….it is Donald j Trump. If you don’t know that, kind of answers the question of why should she do an interview with the media, who obviously have an undeserved high opinion of theemselves.
The only test that matters for democracy is whether we can be confident that Harris will hold a free and fair election in 2028. She passes that test with flying colors.
Trump does not.
So you can take your “she owes it to the media for democracy” argument and dump it in the trash.
"Vice President Kamala Harris received “briefings” and conducted “internal meetings with staff.”
Those briefings and meetings were closed press. Meaning the media was, uh, not invited to attend — even briefly," writes Chris. Gosh, I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! Imagine, a major office holder running a major national campaign receiving briefings and holding staff meetings and not inviting Chris and the MSM to sit in on those sessions. Methinks I've been paying attention to national politics a LOT longer than today's MSM because, Bob Woodward notwithstanding, the press has NEVER been invited in to those meetings, 'even briefly.'
You’re trying too hard to make this A Thing. She hasn’t been running long enough for it to be A Thing yet. She said later this month. Why is that so hard to accept?
C’mon Chris. She’s had 3 weeks to take over the campaign, hire staff, oversee the vetting of several candidates for VP, and then introduce herself and Walz to the country., AND, oh yes, prepare for a convention where she will accept the nomination not 5 weeks after she became the candidate.
There is a thing called “momentum” - and one of the things you don’t do is get in the way of that. She will do her interviews etc - but given the results so far, I think she has been doing EXACTLY what she should be doing.
This is my point! Your argument is that she’s winning so she doesn’t need to talk to the press! But that overlooks the previously stated Democratic belief that talking to the press is absolutely essential!
No, that is NOT my argument. My argument is give her a minute to breathe, for crying out loud. The pressers are needed and will come. but how many hours are in the 3 weeks she’s had, and she’s had a LOT to do to get this up and rolling.
You keep referring to Trump interviews as if they impart information. Either he DOESN'T answer the question or he lies.
I think Kamala is handling it just right. She and Walz are appearing in person so voters can assess their personalities and characters. I’m sure that they’re discussing policies behind the scenes. It is critically important that they agree on well thought out policies that Kamala can explain in interviews. Setting policy is not an overnight exercise, and there are dozens of issues to cover. When hers are finely tuned, *then* is the time to sit for press conferences and interviews.
She has had plenty of time. She could easily make an hour or even less to do an interview.
I find it hard to believe how much you insist on your demonstrably wrong opinion.
We could list the amount of time needed to do to take over the campaign, but I think we all know it is a lot. On the other hand, saying that the amount if time needed for a press conference is the time dedicated to the press conference is downright ridiculous. What's concerning to me that for for you, a seasoned reported, it should be blatantly obvious.
I was working in communications at the Government sector in Europe; preparing a leader for an unremarkable press event (talking about a familiar topic in front of a small and friendly audience) takes like 30-60 minute time out of the leader's day. Kamala Harris needs to be prepared for a barrage of questions on a national stage; several of her answers (like the policy positions of her future presidency) are still being formulated; she is running a short campaign with zero margins for error. Preparing for a large-scale press conference, especially considering Harris's schedule, will take weeks.
On the top of that, the media and the public do not treat both candidates equally on the publick appearances. If I just look at their press performance, Trump is a habitual liar and a bully with the press, and can get away with blatant falsehoods, outside rudeness and obvious ignorance. Any one of these could generate terrabytes of adversarial content on TikTok against Harris if she behaved that way. Trump is expected to be Trump; Harris is expected to be perfect.
Your stubborn argument that the "talking to the press is the right thing to do" is abstract to the point when it does not make any sense. It may be correct on a policy-based campaign when different ideologies crash in a noble battle, but we are very far from that. Harris and the Democrats considers Trump to be an existential threat; voters give zero fucks whether she gives a press conference or an interview. (The majority of them do care about women's right to choose, for example.) She will do it when the time is right for her, when she can maneuver competently against the adversarial environment. Meanwhile, she will find another way to give her policy message to the voters.
Exactly Mark.
It’s easy to talk to “the press” (especially when 95% of those Trump talks are very friendly cheerleaders and NOT “the press” that is a “fundamental piece of American democracy”) or conduct a press conference if he literally spews lies with virtually every utterance.
The scrutiny for accuracy is exponentially more strict for VP Harris than Trump.
So, it’s not simply “She could easily make an hour or even less to do an interview.”.
It’s the case that one word out of place will generate days of negative attention.
Chris should know this, yet, he chooses to ignore reality.
I'm concerned that you think that this is the sort of thing you just squeeze in to your schedule without any sort of prep or planning...
All those tough internal staff meetings she’d have to postpone by 10 minutes…the world would end. The attack line is coming (regardless of your political persuasion beliefs to the contrary) if you cant deal with the press how do you handle Xi, Putin, etc. Fair or unfair, the bite may be bigger than the bark when it does and there will be nobody to blame but herself and the sycophants. She needs to just flip that narrative too and soon.
Yeah come on Chris! She’s not legally required to tell you anything! Everyone should vote for her because she’s not Trump. That’s all you need to know. It’s just like the affordable care act, you have to pass it before you know what’s in it!
It's ok to break the rules if it's working. As Trump has proven. I'm with her.
Chris I know you and the other MAGA crowd are frustrated that Harris is doing very well and you all can smell defeat in the pipeline. Yes, she got zero votes and yet she is the Nominee of the Democrats and over 80% of Democrats are happy with that choice. She's going to talk to the Press and take questions from them . It's not on your timeline though but on her own timeline. Just relax and be patient. Meanwhile though, Chris , keep promoting Donald Trump in the name of "analyzing" his speeches and "interviews"
Dude. Do you even read what I write? Because unlike most people in the comments who are thoughtful in their criticisms, yours is the same thing every day no matter what I write. I literally dedicated my entire day to a breakdown of Trump’s interview Musk! Which was not terribly positive for him!
Dude. I, for one, read what you write. Some snarky comments on transcripts. Not an article about "What Would Happen if This Guy Got to the Oval Office and Would be So Layz that He Would Lead All The Governing to J. D. Vance.". You created two videos about Trump obsessing about size but only one about Project 2025. Maybe there is a slight difference in the weight of these two things.
Chris, why in the world do you waste "my entire day" to a breakdown of Trump's interview?? Anything newsworthy in it was reported last night. As you brag, you're the only one who does this. Maybe you should wonder why that is and stop wasting your time and the time of anyone who bothers to read it. There is no "there" there.
I agree completely with you. It's waste of everybody 's time
You are getting a taste of TDS. It’s, to steal a word, weird!
Keep up the great work!
Chris ,of course , I do read your posts and I do enjoy reading them but just don't always agree with them. I don't consider your "analysis" of Trump's sit down discussion with Musk as objective and critical. You just made some comments about Trump's assertions
I may not agree with Chris' perspective on some things, but to name call and denigrate his work by calling him a Trump/Maga supporter totally misses the analysis and research he does.
Well, you read his posts going forward and you will see that Chris is just parroting MAGA talking points for tye most part
Well, we agree on many things, Dr., but this is not one of them.
Chris, for better or worse, truly *believes* that he’s being “objective” and “unbiased”, and I appreciate that he is sincerely *trying* to do so.
I think he misses the boat, maybe even frequently, but it’s not because he supports or believes MAGA crap.
Though I have a strong sense of humor and appreciate writers that do too, I think that where Chris errs in his “xx Things Trump Said” columns is that he leans more toward comedy (funny memes & GIFs, etc) and less on substantial analysis of the issues with what Trump says.
And in terms of being “unbiased”, we would both agree that a breakdown of a Harris-Walz stump speech, to fully understand what they’re saying and promoting, would be appreciated as well. We said so when Biden was the nominee and we’d like to see the same now that we have the Harris-Walz ticket.
This was never a Democratic belief! It was a Democratic talking point. Now that circumstances have changed, the talking points have changed.
The only "belief" is in getting and holding power, just like the other guys.
She’s an awful candidate! Lincoln said “its easier to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt “
This is the Harris internal campaign slogan. Look out below when she has speak w/o the ole teleprompter…..
why are you even on here? Are you a person, a troll, or a bot? Either way, you're annoying. Talk about fools...maybe if Trump would close his yap once in awhile instead of spewing lies every day we'd all be better off. He speaks out everyday and it's a shit show. Go away.
That’s not very nice. We simply have a difference in opinion?!? Where does the rage come from?
I think you anger people when you make insulting and baseless comments. No unbiased person who watched Harris grill Barr, or Kavenaugh, or Sessions could accuse her of being unable to speak without a teleprompter. So if you're trying to get an adverse reaction, job well done. If you're attempting to make a serious comment, you have validated the Lincoln aphorism you cited.
You are totally discounting ALL the awful interviews over the last 3 1/2 years, very convenient. “Look kids you can see the moon with your own eyes” (paid actors btw) numerous examples could be sighted, it’s all perspective. Folks certainly can agree to disagree, the rage is troubling, it’s just politics, cmon man!
Thank you Dutch, now go back to your corner.
It is really delicious that Chris brings up“what aboutism” so he can shoot it down since he does a good job of tearing down Trump’s press conference and other media answers.
It is exactly because the answers, whatever they are, will be torn down by pundits and reporters looking for stories that a smart person doesn’t let the press tell them when and where to be interviewed. If come Election Day she still hasn’t been interviewed or held a press conference and is winning then we should consider her brilliant. It isn’t as if she isn’t describing her position on issues. For now it is a cry of desperation by the media to get something on her to make it an issue that she doesn’t play by their “rules”. Boo hoo, she’s doing great without talking to the press but talking to the people. If she didn’t talk,hold rallies, it would be different but asking her to stop what’s working is naive
The press is important when it does its job well.
Key caveat…”when it does its job well.”
Yes, doing nothing she has watched JB do that for 3 1/2 years but no issues there, he’s really really sharp!
Man, I think you do a great job, but you should stop it with the take about Harris needing to do more with the press right now. She will, eventually. Perhaps next week, in conjunction with the convention. I don’t know, but it will happen. She has been in the race only three weeks, she has been busy standing up her campaign and barnstorming swing states, and she has taken some questions from the press (but, according to you, not enough).
Thing is, it is *August.* Nobody except you and the rest of the press care about her taking questions right now. Most people are at the beach or taking several days somewhere else where they just aren’t paying attention to the election. Soon she will sit down for interviews, and then no one will remember or care that for a few weeks she didn’t.
Right on 🎯
Chris, I have disagreed with you on the Harris access to press issue before. I think you are dead wrong not because she shouldn't sit down with the press but because it makes no sense. All the reporters will do is ask questions about Trump. I refer you to a post on this substack by Heather Cox Richardson. It was posted on August 9 and the last 2 paragraphs of the post sums it up nicely. Harris approached reporters on the tarmac and the only questions were about what Trump said. Look at all the money they are spending on advertising and social media where they don't have to field questions about the other guy. The problem is not the campaign it is the reporters who insist on covering an election on the wrong terms.
How do you know what they will ask? I am sure some will ask about Trump! But others will ask about her flip flops on policy. Still others will ask about her plans if she elected.
Hey Chris, as stated in my earlier post, I think you have a point, but it doesn't hold much weight. But I commend you for staking out ground you know will displease some and for defending your position. If I wanted to hear only affirming views, I'd just mutter to myself. (I do that too, but you get my drift.)
How do we know what the press will ask? C’mon Chris! The press, especially the political press, will ask whatever questions are necessary to drive the most clicks. That is it. The press is a business, not a public good.
Additionally, the body of evidence suggests that the American people just don’t care about policy.
If I could believe that the press would actually ask Harris about expanding the AMA, long-term debt and deficits, our role in NATO, and other serious topics, then I might agree with you. But the press has shown no such inclination because those topics get no traction with American readers.
So why should Harris play by their rules?
The only reason that she should give an interview is to blunt the line of attack that she doesn’t give interviews. But she doesn’t owe the press anything.
Agreed 💯! IF they asked substantial questions, good! However, modern media is stuck on clickbait (see also some of Chris Cillizza’s headlines) as they try to figure out the change in business models and save their companies.
Chris writing this Substack column, given that he and others were laid off from CNN due to “cost cutting measures”, is the perfect example of how far the mighty newspapers and networks have fallen…
Wait, don’t sit down with the press because they ask questions about what your opponent said even though your entire campaign is talking about what your opponent says and does? That makes absolutely zero sense.
This. The media is the problem not the solution. Their appalling behavior needs investigating. They should not be entitled to anything. Why on earth do they think that?
Investigating by who, exactly?
Great question. They are above reproach, right? lol
Just tell me who you want to "investigate". The FBI?
Ignoring the press completely might not be the crisis in democracy Chris or the media think it is.
I hear what you are saying Chris, but I think what you miss is that this is not a level playing field. She’s running against someone who has broken all norms of politics and of the presidency when he held it.
When the mainstream media begins covering Trump’s clear cognitive issues, then I think you can press Kamala for reporters questions and interviews.
Exactly. Trump didn't even bother to debate his GOP primary candidates because he felt like he didn't have anything to gain. Was the press clamoring for him to take part?
When you wrote about this on Friday, I left what I think was an extremely patient and thoughtful comment (it's the top one, you don't even have to scroll to read it) respectfully disagreeing with you. And now you've written this. So now I'm going to be a little less patient:
What *you* are doing here is whataboutism. Not what Harris is doing. What *you* are doing.
She has been a candidate for three weeks. That's it. And no, she didn't just inherit everything from Biden. That's minimizing what an accomplishment it was to step in to this position, to staff it up, to come up with a campaign strategy, vet a running mate, and tour every swing state. It's frankly offensive. You're better than that.
Ditto on both of your post
I'm not going to get on you for this post. You are in journalism and doing what is in your blood. I greatly appreciate the job you do, how you do it, the decision to stay in the business when it was a very tough time for you personally. Thank you for doing it.
I'm not going to disagree with you. Being open with the media is a great thing.
But on this one, I am with Kamala. When she is ready to speak to the media, she'll do it. Whatever her reasons, whether it is to get better up to speed on the issues, or anything else, I'm (and millions of others) giving her a pass.
I do think the media has a false sense of self-importance. I hate that the average American, on both sides of the aisle, don't have a high opinion on the news media. That is dangerous and self-destructive to our democracy. I'm most worried about the loss of news media in small communities across the land. Every small newspaper that ceases to publish is one less barrier between corruption and the people.
Sadly, we need Kamala to win so badly that we'll wait to see her go round with the media.
Respectfully, Chris, the country didn't seem to give a rat's ass for democracy when Joe Biden was out there campaigning on preserving it in light of the threat Trump poses. So perhaps the voters don't and are not going to care about "doing the right thing for democracy" when it comes to how Harris is running her campaign?
I mean, ultimately the voters will decide whether or not to penalize her for not giving the media its normal, expected role in sorting everything out. A role, can we agree, in which it has not exactly covered itself in glory since, well, maybe since the 1970s when Rupert Murdoch bought the NY Post? Given what that same media did to Sanders, did to Clinton, certainly tried to do to Biden, is it any wonder that, if Team Harris can see a media-lite path to victory, she wouldn't be in any great hurry to show her carotid arteries to the teeth of that beast?
You can make all sorts of good points about how democracy usually does or should work (one of which is that it should not include the thumbs of Elon Musk or Timothy Mellon on the scales), but in this case the voters will have the final say, democratically. If they don't like being less than fully informed by the legacy gotcha press, they always have the option of voting for Trump -- about whom they know everything they would ever need to know.
Have you thought she never in Hell thought she would be running for President and didn't have her own position papers or policy positions veted out. That takes time especially with all that was on her plate. So should she go out before doing deep dives on these or take some time to put them in her plank at the Democratic Convention. For her time frame the need is to be competent and thorough not meet the press's time table of feelinh relavent. Three months for that.
I'll make it easy for Chris and everyone else here......
The only folks concerned that Harris (& Walz) haven't interacted with the media are (wait for it) THE MEDIA.
At the end of the day, this is really the bottom line.
If I’m advising Harris, I tell her to put off doing any press conferences which are most likely going to generate negative headlines.
She’s riding a wave of positivity.
No reason to do anything to crash that wave.
You made a comment also about “winning at any cost.” It’s my opinion that Democrats generally don’t take that approach while Republicans do and therefore self-handicap themselves.
Last thought…
There’s a scene in Ridley Scott’s “Kingdom of Heaven” where one character tells another that someday you may wish you had done a little bad so that you later can do a greater good. I see that as analogy to Harris not doing any press conferences at this time.
Take a look at the ratings of the traditional media’s trustworthiness when you get a chance. You vastly overestimate the average voter’s interest in watching a gaggle of hacks hurling gossip and innuendo like they’re on a trading floor 10 minutes before the closing bell. The pressers that you deem so critical are almost always a national embarrassment as reporters with minimal qualifications foist their biases and desperation for attention on the citizenry.
This isn’t about how popular the media is. It’s about whether the media is a fundamental piece of American democracy or not.
No one is saying that “the media” is NOT a “fundamental piece of American democracy”. It most certainly is.
But whining about no interviews or press conferences (only three weeks into an historically unusual campaign) and six days before the start of the DNC is foolish at best, an arrogant self-important, self-serving hissy fit at worst.
Yes, “the media” IS a “fundamental piece of American democracy” but it collectively does not dictate how democracy unfolds.
^^^ THIS ^^^
THANK YOU!!
I’d argue that the subjective behavior of the US media has disqualified them from being a fundamental piece of democracy they once were. I’m not saying they can’t be again. But much needs to change.
Spoiler alert: it's not.
Not in this way, at least. Harris has a zillion ways to communicate with voters, and to sample voter opinion on what are important issues.
The media is "a fundamental piece of American democracy" when it does investigative reporting, like uncover hidden corruption.
Asking questions of POTUS candidates is very far down the list of the what the media is good for.
And, sadly, the media no longer is. As another poster noted, the media certainly is self-important and dedicated primarily to supposed “gotcha” coverage that gets eyeballs and clicks. But — again sadly, it just doesn’t fulfill an essential purpose any longer as it can’t be trusted not to distill everything through whatever prism that serves its own purposes….
Embedded within your piece is the reason why Harris should completely ignore the media. They aren’t honest brokers. Are probably corrupt and being paid by the Trump campaign in some instances. Only too willing to publish Hillary’s hacked documents they decide this time to hide Trump’s. They abuse polling to drive public opinion. They obsess on stories which are misleading but drive advertising revenue. The idea that democracy requires Harris to give them the attention they are asking for only works if they remain objective. Which they clearly aren’t. Biden’s refusal to grant the NYT an interview clearly caused them to print every negative story they could about him. So much so, the NYT pitchbot was created to mock their folly. Harris needs to tell the media to fuck off.
Give her a minute for God’s sake. You aren’t the only 45 fact checker, CNN does it regularly, and if your paid subscription number is accurate (and I am one of them) you are being well-paid for your fact checking. Look for policy in her acceptance speech Thursday and then game-on. You chose to create a pay-only firewall, I did it reluctantly for facts, not whining about a three week campaign when 45 is hunkered down hiding. How about coverage of why the Bozeman rally was two hours late? Someone else got the scoop that they were delinquent on Bozeman airport payments from a past rally. Where is your coverage of that little morsal of proof of how horrible he is - plus all of the unpaid bills to 2016 and 2020 rally host communities. Did that compare to Butler PA’s security failure?
The right thing to do for democracy? Are you kidding? With a media that seems bent on soft balling Trump to another presidency?
The threat to democracy is not Harris not doing interviews….it is Donald j Trump. If you don’t know that, kind of answers the question of why should she do an interview with the media, who obviously have an undeserved high opinion of theemselves.
Chris,
Harris owes the media nothing.
The only test that matters for democracy is whether we can be confident that Harris will hold a free and fair election in 2028. She passes that test with flying colors.
Trump does not.
So you can take your “she owes it to the media for democracy” argument and dump it in the trash.
"Vice President Kamala Harris received “briefings” and conducted “internal meetings with staff.”
Those briefings and meetings were closed press. Meaning the media was, uh, not invited to attend — even briefly," writes Chris. Gosh, I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! Imagine, a major office holder running a major national campaign receiving briefings and holding staff meetings and not inviting Chris and the MSM to sit in on those sessions. Methinks I've been paying attention to national politics a LOT longer than today's MSM because, Bob Woodward notwithstanding, the press has NEVER been invited in to those meetings, 'even briefly.'
:D Kudos.
You’re trying too hard to make this A Thing. She hasn’t been running long enough for it to be A Thing yet. She said later this month. Why is that so hard to accept?