A shocker! A journalist questions the media's right to demand Kamala face a real press conference.
Americans are left to buy a pig in a poke.
Never in my wildest dreams as a retired journalist would I have imagine that the press would think that a presidential candidate should not have to answer questions at a press conference.
But here is a prominent media reporter who is widely respected in the business who does just that—blithely waving away any idea that the press can subject a presidential candidate to questions from all sides.
Isn’t it time she faced the nation and meet the press I wondered in an earlier post, now that she had won the debate? As a matter of curiosity I asked the media reporter. (I’m not naming him to save him embarrassment and a flood of outraged mail.)
Here’s our complete email exchange:
Me (Before the debate): “Do you plan to do a deep dive into Kamala Harris' avoidance of Q&As, pressers, interviews and so forth? Why aren't her current (as opposed to past) positions clear? Is it because her advisors are working on her campaign positions and themes?
Answer: “I am going to address it, yes. My thought: why would she do any q&A's before the convention, which is next week? I don't blame her for wanting to control the narrative until then.”
Me: It makes sense for her to hold off until the convention when she can present it in a controlled and scripted manner. I'd do the same. The criticism about her "silence" will disappear after then, I think.
In my next email after the convention I confessed how wrong I was about that: “Looks like I was wrong. It appears she'll give no or few pressers, etc. And the criticism of her "silence" hasn't disappeared. Do you think it's possible that she'll continue the same strategy throughout the campaign?
I followed up with this: “Do you think that Harris will hold at least one real press conference before election day? Shouldn't that be the biggest journalism story now?’
Answer: “I don't know about "biggest" journalism story. She has a couple of interviews coming up, including one tonight.”
Me: Thanks for the answer. But will it be a "regular" press conference and not one conducted by friendlies?
Answer: “I don't know. Not even sure it matters at this point. I can't imagine that there is anyone undecided at this point who will change their vote based on how well/poorly she does in a press conference.”
Me: “You're right; it might not matter. I guess she would answer with platitudes (just like Trump). But just the principle of the thing: Don't voters deserve that? As a retired journalist, it pisses me off.”
Answer: “If there are voters who don't like that she hasn't done a press conference, they can do something about it by not voting for her. I'm not sure she is obligated to do one. Now, that changes if she becomes president. Then she absolutely owes it to Americans and the press to answer questions. Until then? Like I said, many would like for her to do a press conference. But not sure we have the right to demand it.
I hadn’t planned to do a post about this conversation, but questioning whether “we” have the right to demand it is so breathtaking and bewildering that I had to share this. Because I believe it to be the reigning sentiment among today’s journalists. Witness the near absence of widespread press criticism of her avoidance.
It cracks me up that any journalist would think that the “sit-downs” and “interviews” that Kamala has allowed don’t in any way meet the test. If you need an example to enlighten you on this score, what do you think about a FoxNews host interviewing Donald Trump? Penetrating? Challenging? Laughable.
Even funnier is the excuse that Harris is too busy to hold a press conference.
Aside from the First Amendment guaranteeing the media a critical role in democratic governance there’s also this: The “right” belongs more essentially to citizens and voters. The public has a right to see and hear the candidate face critical and important questions about the candidate’s policies. The press has the power (and the right) to do that.
To wait until after election to hold a press conference is mind-blowing. Dare I use an old expression about buying a “pig in a poke” without being called a racist or misogynist? To avoid a real press conference pre-election is like buying a pig in a sack without looking beforehand to make sure that the contents are a pig.
Harris and her spokespersons (including those in the media) are creating a horrible precedent. Not until now has anyone, especially anyone in the media, ever hinted that the press should let a candidate skate into office like Harris intends.
Journalism is a profession that used to honor “door kickers” who were determined to get answers, no matter what party or candidate was the target. No longer. Pulitzer Prizes and other honors now are awarded to the best the best echo chamber.
How great is the irony that the liberal-dominated media should warn that “a Trump victory could embolden attacks on journalists.” CNN’s Democratic mouthpiece Brian Stelter quotes a report that concludes “Media workers are confronting challenges that include an increased risk of violence, arrest, on- and offline harassment, legal battles, and criminalization.”
If so, the election of a president who hasn’t responded to serious, even critical questions nor has won a single vote in two primaries is a more serious threat—to democracy itself. She has been appointed candidate by a cabal of self-appointed liberals and Democrats who are too secretive to be questioned by anyone.
This is scary.