Ernesto Apreza, special assistant to Biden and press secretary to Harris, noted via his personal X account, by the time Harris sat down with Bash last Thursday, she had already "done 80 interviews this year alone."

I suppose I can align with Joan Walsh of The Nation's categorization that Bash "did adequately," but overall I found the interview a bit disappointing given all Bash ultimately did was pose questions framed around GOP talking points.

Bash's questions, like those of so many other reporters of her ilk, suggest the real aim was to catch the candidate in a "gotcha" moment as opposed to enlightening the voters about any specific policy proposals from the Harris/Walz ticket.

If policy were such a concern, we would have heard less about fracking and perhaps more about Harris' housing policy, which she just gave a speech on.

Again, here we have a presidential candidate running ads on an issue often largely ignored in national politics (in spite of the national housing crisis), but instead of hearing more questions about that, viewers were subjected to ones about Trump's attempt to reboot birtherism and semantics over what treatment Tim Walz's wife underwent to help expand their family.

Yet, in post-interview critiques, Harris remains the main target.

The Wall Street Journal's Molly Ball claimed that Harris didn't really answer questions about "flip-flopping" and described the interview as "mid." (For what it's worth, she described "mid" as Gen Z lingo when in fact it is just Black lingo that white people found hella late.)

As for Ball and the co-host's quip that Harris "might have to start answering some questions" in future interviews, here's hoping she will be asked better, more thoughtful ones. I'm glad Harris did the interview if only to shut some people up, but for all the hype placed on Harris doing this interview and even though CNN may have gotten a small but much-needed ratings bump, the public is no better informed about what kind of president she might be after its completion.

I thought

No you didn't. You seldom do before jamming your foot into your mouth.

DEI

Polly wanna cracker? Oh I forgot, Polly is a cracker.

The article makes a salient point: When are white presidential candidates asked questions about their racial identity simply because an opponent has made a remark about it, and how do such questions help inform voters about the issues that actually concern their own lives instead of the tripe coming from Trump's bigoted mouth?

The correct answers would be 'never' and 'they don't'.

Trump attacked Joe Biden for any number of things, but questioning his "whiteness" was never one of them. This nation has now seen two individuals who identify as black win the Democratic nomination for President. Donald Trump has not only questioned each person's, racial composition, he's questioned their citizenship - solely because each had a parent (or parents) that weren't born in America.

So take your 'DEI' take and shove it were the rest of your insipid ideas emanate.

they need to be able to actually talk to her.

They have.

Why do you care? You have no intention of even considering voting for her anyway.

Exactly. His only interest in the question is the belief that if enough voters find Harris' ignoring of the media off-putting it will harm her electoral chances.

As the author noted:

And isn't this all supposed to be about informing voters?

It's a shame that more political press people don't acknowledge their own roles in why some candidates, like Harris, might be reluctant to speak with the press and instead try to reach voters directly through other means.

Even if I believe she should be met with hard questions, I wouldn't encourage her to waste her time doing formal interviews full of dumb and biased ones.

I love seeing the rationalization of Harris dodging the press as a good thing

Does she dodge voters, or does she take her case directly to them instead of dealing with idiots like you who only want to ask questions in hopes of getting a "gotcha" take?

If I were her, I wouldn't do interviews either. She's asking voters for their support, not the US media.

Funny how that concept escapes your incessant griping Strawlighter. No, actually it isn't funny, it's simply on brand for a biased tool such as yourself.

The reason it's important for presidential candidates to do interviews and hold pressers is so that the media can pin them down on policies and position toons so that voters have the information they neeed to make an informed vote.

According to you, not voters. You obviously haven't read the criticism in the article or you wouldn't be posting tangential garbage unrelated to what the media actually asks as questions.

I found myself genuinely frustrated for Vice President Kamala Harris when CNN's Dana Bash asked her about presidential rival Donald Trump's inane claim that she only "turned Black" in recent years out of political expediency.

Harris' response was perfect: "Same old tired playbook. Next question, please."

I found the interview a bit disappointing given all Bash ultimately did was pose questions framed around GOP talking points.

The question about Harris' identity is one example. Another is Bash's insistence on pressing Harris about why she no longer backs a fracking ban she proposed four years ago during the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries.

One more is Bash's questions to Walz in the final third of the interview, specifically the one about his wife's fertility treatments.

"I wish I didn't have to do this, but I spoke about our infertility issues because it's health, and families know this. I spoke about the treatments that were available to us," Walz explained. "That's quite a contrast with folks that are trying to take those rights away from us. I don't think Americans are cutting hairs on IVF or IUI; I think they're cutting hairs on the idea of an abortion ban and the ability to deny families a chance for a beautiful child."

His answer on fertility treatments was more dignified than the question posed to him.

Bash's questions, like those of so many other reporters of her ilk, suggest the real aim was to catch the candidate in a "gotcha" moment as opposed to enlightening the voters about any specific policy proposals from the Harris/Walz ticket.

If policy were such a concern, we would have heard less about fracking and perhaps more about Harris' housing policy, which she just gave a speech on.

And the beauty of that is she has the money to do so.

And here's what Fox News' White House correspondent really wants Americans to know about Harris' policies:

At Tuesday's press briefing, Doocy had asked Jean-Pierre, "Since when does the vice president have what sounds like a Southern accent?"

"Is that how she talks in meetings here?"

I do agree that the media tends to ask gotcha questions but some policy and position questions do get sprinkled in.

THAT's the criticism! Thanks for finally acknowledging that. As the author wrote:

It's a shame that more political press people don't acknowledge their own roles in why some candidates, like Harris, might be reluctant to speak with the press and instead try to reach voters directly through other means.

Even if I believe she should be met with hard questions, I wouldn't encourage her to waste her time doing formal interviews full of dumb and biased ones.

Why wouldn't everyone find Harris ignoring the media as off-putting?
Why would you think this behavior would end once the campaign is over?
It's absurd.

No, it's illogical. Kamala Harris has been elected to multiple offices in her 20 years of public service. She does not have a record of shirking the press at any of those jobs.

The general public has the ability to listen to Kamala lay out her agenda, they do not need media members to act as go-betweens when they seldom ask questions that serve the electorate's needs. Instead, they ask insipid questions which serve their need for eyeballs, ears, and clicks.

With each passing post, it's obvious you know as little about America and our electoral processes and its influences.

You're flailing as badly as Trump was during his incoherent answer about child care yesterday. And need I remind you, neither the question nor answer came from "the media", it came from a non-media member attending the forum.

And frankly, it was a far more germane and illustrative question than anyone in the media has asked Trump in forever.

Only some one beholden to the big media outlets would claim that this is "taking her case directly with the electorate".

I guess this person has never heard of printed media, the USPS, campaign spokespeople or the concept of "controlling the narrative."

Perfect example of how to tell someone that the speaker personally knows little in detail about American elections without actually telling them.

The author seems to be suggesting that, since she is a "strong black woman," the press should treat her differently than if she were not.

Not at all. And anyone equating the POTUS to Oprah and Michelle Obama are still missing the point.

The point is NO ONE is served by the media asking insipid questions to Kamala as though they're trying to scoop Entertainment Tonight instead of actual questions related to voter concerns, not the meaningless tripe of Trump and the right wing media.

Why don't you let the adults continue to have peaceful discussions without your interruptions. Stick to economic threads. You make them smell like Trump's overloaded Depends.

If Kamalobama made remarks about her opponent's so-called race, you can be sure the media would be jumping all over themselves to get a reaction from them about it.

Exactly! And just how would that inform voters on matters that concern THEM instead of what the media seeks answers to, only looking for sensational tropes to garner eyeballs and clicks?

Eliminate the middle man and tell the voters what you want them to hear. If that doesn't work and voters reject her method, Kamala will lose on Election Day, which is all those griping only care about in the first place.

Here's why this entire subject is nothing but media-created BS - a blatant double standard that Trump has never been held to.

Also, Trump and Vance both have beeen very acccessible.

It's not really that insipid if it is being asked by her opponent. Not necessarily

Read post 35 as many times as it takes to sink in.

I get that you like this sort of insipidness-from the author-but you'd vote for a punchbowl turd if he/she had a (D) in front of their name.

Well, this argument is over.

What is she?

Madame President-in-waiting.

Jesus H. Tony Roma is actually implying that the media treats Harris worse than Trump.

If by worse you mean that the media expects coherent answers and details from Harris while they accept gibberish and word salads from Trump, then you're right.

The media treats her differently than Trump, holding her to a higher standard than they do with him. And she's not going to play that game.

And frankly, after today, she won't have to. Trump just became the only issue that matters and will dominate from here forward, and I'll tell you why:

The Cheney's are telling Republicans 'You can either be with us and Kamala who were totally appalled by January 6th, or you can be with the person who caused January 6th, Donald Trump, and support everything else that comes with him.'

Tell me I'm wrong.

You mean where the propaganda can't be challenged, or we can have a "conversation" FFS.

Again, a complete lack of understanding on how American elections work. The opponent is the adversary, not the press. The opponent makes substantive critiques of the other sides issue and policy positions. The media's job is to report it, not inject themselves into the process for the sake of its own business model.

Printed pieces aren't government edicts that voters are bound to like in authoritarian countries your thought process is more familiar with. Every person has multiple choices when receiving something in the mail from a politician: 1) Read it, and consider what it says as it pertains to the individual's electoral decision; 2) Throw it in the trash/ignore the information; 3) Use the information given and then do independent research on BOTH candidate's positions and policies; 4) Do something not mention in 1-3.

And every voter is free to have "conversations" with whomever they want to, no one needs the media to moderate these conversations for them.

In America, both voters and candidates have the freedom to run and vote however they want. The media can either assist or hinder any particular candidate, and how they choose to deal with the media is their choice alone. Again, if voters think that NOT taking precious time away from speaking to actual voters and sitting down with media members is a dealbreaker, then that's up to them, not the media, to decide. The media's in it for money, not patriotism. Don't conflate the two.