With all due respect, I was furious the other day when I read your Guardian column. The Harris/Walz campaign doesn't owe the press spit, especially after the way the media deliberately torpedoed the Biden/Harris campaign. They've lost all credibility with anyone who cares about truth and democracy. I'm not sure how they can or if they ever will recover from that. They need a mountain of good will to earn back some respect, and not only do I not see it happening, they seem to be getting worse.
If they were actually interested in the Harris/Walz policy on issues, all they have to do is do their jobs. It's all out their in their campaign speeches and comments.
Also, why can the media no longer have a good faith, civil conversation with our leaders. Instead, everything is a knife to the gut attack. I don't blame candidates for ignoring the press, whenever they can.
As far as who could do a fair interview, I would trust Heather Cox Richardson. I think she can ask tough questions without the need for bullshit "gotchas".
Yes, she'd be a good one. For those who don't know her, she's a historian by training, not a journalist, although she frequently functions as a journalist (and a very good one).
It's not what they owe the press. It's what they owe the American people. Like it or not (and a lot of reporters clearly seem not to), they are the constitutionally designated stand-ins for the people themselves, although the Internet has broken down some of the barriers between national candidates and the people that used to exist.
But press conferences and interviews are not only unnecessary, the press has chosen to make them downright damaging to democracy - giving Trump a free pass while behaving like a pack of hyenas with Biden. Harris can deliver directly to the American people all the information we need to understand her policies and plans, and the media can still do its job of investigating and reporting (and will).
Disagree. Someone independent of the candidate/campaign needs to be asking powerful people and institutions hard questions, and in the case of a presidential candidate, that person needs to be experienced in asking questions that 1) are factually accurate, 2) are contextually accurate (this is where U.S. journalists most frequently screw up), and 3) are not necessarily what the subject wants to talk about. I think a 1:1 interview of Harris by a skilled questioner could hold Harris accountable, make her explain not only what she wants to do but also how and why, and -- if Harris is on her game -- still provide plenty of material for Harris campaign ads.
Here's another thing to add to press recommendations:
Investigate election officials, appointed or elected, in every state. Reveal those who are election deniers, when and how they denied election results. List them. We, the people, need to know who we can hold to their oaths and official responsibilities as election certifiers, regardless of their political preferences.
Marc Elias and his crew at Democracy Docket are the leaders on this and we need to do everything possible to expose what is happening with the election deniers and the trump efforts to challenge the results of the election.
and who's suing to change election law and procedures, who's "cleansing" registration rolls, who dropped out of ERIC, what the RNC Election Integrity Group is doing: will they meet Lara's goal of "getting to touch" the ballot/, what's Christina Bobb up to, etc, etc, etc. Roger Stone?
When a respected journalist like Chris Jansing repeats the Trump-spouted lie about attracting 100,000 people to a rally, can the obituary for journalistic integrity might already be in the works. There is a marked lack of courage in the Trump coverage. While advocating for a Harris sit-down with the press, there has been scant discussion about a similar meeting with Trump. There has been no policy proposals from Trump in five years - none. So he only speaks to friendly interviewers or extends himself for a mission of insult for those he doesn’t like. Yet we expect a more “normal” campaign from Harris. Instead of excusing aberrant behavior as Trump being Trump and demanding a more normal opponent, the media needs to grow a pair in dealing with a convicted felon and sexual abuser. His act has exhausted voters but not the reporters covering him.
Very much appreciating the comments here. I’ll clarify one thing which perhaps I wasn’t clear enough about. My call for Harris to do an interview was not to benefit the media but the public. I do understand that many think an in-depth, sit-down interview with a journalist wouldn’t serve that purpose; but there are serious journalists who aren’t merely interested in clicks and controversy. Rallies and speeches and written platforms are not the same as seeing a candidate respond to substantive questions in real time. I do hear your disillusionment with the political press, and to a large extent, I share it.
in-depth, sit-down interview fine. Trump first. Idn fact, instead of the debates why don't we have serial sit-down interviews with the candidates.
Look I understand handling lies is difficult --calling such things out can lead to unpleasant @ blowback even threats if a candidate happens to be a little nasty. @ the laest, a a persistent questioner of Trump can expect to lose access.
Often individual journalists don't seem to be getting much support from their corporate leaders. The Ronna McDaniel-MSNBC flirtation was instructive as was the coverage of the recent Trump small rallies on MSNBC that drew Lawrence O'Donnell's criticism. Where are Ben Bradlee and Margaret Graham when we need them?
Some of these journalists could practice by in-depth sit-down interviews with each other. Questions about their opinions and practice on MAD's 18 points would be a good framework.
The press, as well as the truth, has taken a big hit during the Trump years.
I checked into Threads this morning. The Harris campaign, on the (a) KamalaHarris account, is promoting a one-on-one conversation between her and Tim Walz. It is posting on YouTube today and you can bet the views will soar. The question isn’t who among us will get the interview; they are seizing the microphone and the cameras and playing that role themselves. Come on, journalism, get in there!
How about a news conference with college student journalists? I follow the Independent Florida Alligator, and there is often more substance there than in most traditional newspapers these days. For a sit down interview with a traditional journalist, perhaps Yamiche Alcindor.
I have to agree with O'Donnell. The media is not afraid to attack democrats because they fear no reprisal. They are very timid with trump and other right wingers. I've seen Katie Tur get walked all over by right wingers because she seemed to be afraid of them and that is common with the media.
Thank you, Margaret, for all you do working to improve journalism. We are grateful that you are featuring our guidelines.
Americans deserve better from newsrooms. In pursuit of profit and access, the news industry has lost sight of its moral obligation to thoroughly inform voters of the policy positions and fitness of candidates for office. We deserve in depth coverage of important issues, not endless speculation that turns consequential politics into dumbed down sports reporting.
Here is a link to read the guidelines, see who has signed, and sign on, if so moved:
"In pursuit of profit and access, the news industry has lost sight of its moral obligation to thoroughly inform voters of the policy positions and fitness of candidates for office. We deserve in depth coverage of important issues, not endless speculation that turns consequential politics into dumbed down sports reporting."
Admittedly a dumb question but anyone can jump in with ideas: Is there anything we can tweek within the tax code that would purportedly allow media companies to pursue more thorough journalism without risking their bottom line?
If Harris does an interview - and I think there are good reasons why she never should - the ONLY interviewer I would trust is Lawrence O'Donnell. He was one of the few voices of reason as the pack was baying for Biden's blood, and he did a solid risk/benefit analysis of a candidate switch - something I saw no other journalist do. He would ask truly important questions and have a respectful, POSITIVE discussion...whereas other journalists are showing a knee-jerk antipathy for the enthusiasm and joy Harris has generated, clearly itching to pop the Kamalot bubble. They'd use an interview to slap voters across the face and scream, "Snap out of it!", rather than just accept that for once, something wonderful and good is happening. Only O'Donnell would respect the Harris/Walz movement and would not (unconsciously or deliberately) try to destroy its hope, pride, and power. To save democracy, we have to stay energized and mobilized, and we can't do that if we listen to the despair being spread by Trump AND the media. People are wrong to accuse the media of a liberal bias, I think. Their real bias is negativity.
Also...thank you for spotlighting that letter to the media. I'll read it in full and share it. :)
I’d choose you, or someone like you. She shouldn’t reward the MSM for their abject failure to treat democracy as the preeminent issue in this election. She should do an interview with someone who values the stakes more than the horse race, and tell NYT, Wapo and the rest to pound salt until they decide to finally do their job.
Jon Stewart would get my vote! He’s a serious thinker, asks great questions, and defies the group think of the political press. I couldn’t agree more with what readers told you about the mainstream media!
Thank you so much for your advocacy for better media in service of DEMOCRACY, and for the Media and Democracy Project! We're grateful for everyone who has signed on and amplified here https://mediaanddemocracyproject.substack.com/
Nicolle Wallace is one of the very few women over 50 who are allowed to be on network television. She is 100 times more thoughtful and honest than most of the faces still allowed on the networks. She might be the very few I would trust to handle an interview, which is why I still disagree with the press conference proposal.
I'm less worried about the need for Harris to have a press conference or sit-down right now than a lot of people, mainly because Harris has said she'd have one or both before the end of the month. That actually should be perfectly satisfactory given that she had only a few weeks -- not the normal months or years -- to prepare and form this presidential campaign and name a running mate before the Democratic National Convention. If she keeps this promise, I'll be satisfied.
Given the choice between a news conference and a sit-down interview, I would prefer to see a sit-down interview. As to who should conduct it, I would say Lawrence O'Donnell or else one of the many veteran journalists at the BBC who has a demonstrated ability to keep the subjects on topic, to call out B.S., and to either get an answer or ensure that no answer will be forthcoming and make that clear to the audience.
U.S. news coverage of this campaign has been largely awful, with a few honorable exceptions -- O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Charlie Pierce at Esquire, Jennifer Rubin at the Post. The idea of letting the herd of swine that, for the most part, is the U.S. news media shout pointless questions at Harris for 90 minutes should be a nonstarter until they, as a group, have demonstrated more journalistic skill.
With all due respect, I was furious the other day when I read your Guardian column. The Harris/Walz campaign doesn't owe the press spit, especially after the way the media deliberately torpedoed the Biden/Harris campaign. They've lost all credibility with anyone who cares about truth and democracy. I'm not sure how they can or if they ever will recover from that. They need a mountain of good will to earn back some respect, and not only do I not see it happening, they seem to be getting worse.
If they were actually interested in the Harris/Walz policy on issues, all they have to do is do their jobs. It's all out their in their campaign speeches and comments.
Also, why can the media no longer have a good faith, civil conversation with our leaders. Instead, everything is a knife to the gut attack. I don't blame candidates for ignoring the press, whenever they can.
As far as who could do a fair interview, I would trust Heather Cox Richardson. I think she can ask tough questions without the need for bullshit "gotchas".
Heather Cox Richardson would be an excellent choice.
Yes, she'd be a good one. For those who don't know her, she's a historian by training, not a journalist, although she frequently functions as a journalist (and a very good one).
It's not what they owe the press. It's what they owe the American people. Like it or not (and a lot of reporters clearly seem not to), they are the constitutionally designated stand-ins for the people themselves, although the Internet has broken down some of the barriers between national candidates and the people that used to exist.
But press conferences and interviews are not only unnecessary, the press has chosen to make them downright damaging to democracy - giving Trump a free pass while behaving like a pack of hyenas with Biden. Harris can deliver directly to the American people all the information we need to understand her policies and plans, and the media can still do its job of investigating and reporting (and will).
Disagree. Someone independent of the candidate/campaign needs to be asking powerful people and institutions hard questions, and in the case of a presidential candidate, that person needs to be experienced in asking questions that 1) are factually accurate, 2) are contextually accurate (this is where U.S. journalists most frequently screw up), and 3) are not necessarily what the subject wants to talk about. I think a 1:1 interview of Harris by a skilled questioner could hold Harris accountable, make her explain not only what she wants to do but also how and why, and -- if Harris is on her game -- still provide plenty of material for Harris campaign ads.
Agreed.
I couldn't agree more. Very well said.
Here's another thing to add to press recommendations:
Investigate election officials, appointed or elected, in every state. Reveal those who are election deniers, when and how they denied election results. List them. We, the people, need to know who we can hold to their oaths and official responsibilities as election certifiers, regardless of their political preferences.
Marc Elias and his crew at Democracy Docket are the leaders on this and we need to do everything possible to expose what is happening with the election deniers and the trump efforts to challenge the results of the election.
This might be the most impactful thing journalists could do to blunt the dangers coming from Trumpists post-election.
Sounds like a job for Pro Publica, and I say that with great respect.
Very important! Few journalists do this.
and who's suing to change election law and procedures, who's "cleansing" registration rolls, who dropped out of ERIC, what the RNC Election Integrity Group is doing: will they meet Lara's goal of "getting to touch" the ballot/, what's Christina Bobb up to, etc, etc, etc. Roger Stone?
YES!!!
When a respected journalist like Chris Jansing repeats the Trump-spouted lie about attracting 100,000 people to a rally, can the obituary for journalistic integrity might already be in the works. There is a marked lack of courage in the Trump coverage. While advocating for a Harris sit-down with the press, there has been scant discussion about a similar meeting with Trump. There has been no policy proposals from Trump in five years - none. So he only speaks to friendly interviewers or extends himself for a mission of insult for those he doesn’t like. Yet we expect a more “normal” campaign from Harris. Instead of excusing aberrant behavior as Trump being Trump and demanding a more normal opponent, the media needs to grow a pair in dealing with a convicted felon and sexual abuser. His act has exhausted voters but not the reporters covering him.
Very much appreciating the comments here. I’ll clarify one thing which perhaps I wasn’t clear enough about. My call for Harris to do an interview was not to benefit the media but the public. I do understand that many think an in-depth, sit-down interview with a journalist wouldn’t serve that purpose; but there are serious journalists who aren’t merely interested in clicks and controversy. Rallies and speeches and written platforms are not the same as seeing a candidate respond to substantive questions in real time. I do hear your disillusionment with the political press, and to a large extent, I share it.
in-depth, sit-down interview fine. Trump first. Idn fact, instead of the debates why don't we have serial sit-down interviews with the candidates.
Look I understand handling lies is difficult --calling such things out can lead to unpleasant @ blowback even threats if a candidate happens to be a little nasty. @ the laest, a a persistent questioner of Trump can expect to lose access.
Often individual journalists don't seem to be getting much support from their corporate leaders. The Ronna McDaniel-MSNBC flirtation was instructive as was the coverage of the recent Trump small rallies on MSNBC that drew Lawrence O'Donnell's criticism. Where are Ben Bradlee and Margaret Graham when we need them?
Some of these journalists could practice by in-depth sit-down interviews with each other. Questions about their opinions and practice on MAD's 18 points would be a good framework.
The press, as well as the truth, has taken a big hit during the Trump years.
I checked into Threads this morning. The Harris campaign, on the (a) KamalaHarris account, is promoting a one-on-one conversation between her and Tim Walz. It is posting on YouTube today and you can bet the views will soar. The question isn’t who among us will get the interview; they are seizing the microphone and the cameras and playing that role themselves. Come on, journalism, get in there!
How about a news conference with college student journalists? I follow the Independent Florida Alligator, and there is often more substance there than in most traditional newspapers these days. For a sit down interview with a traditional journalist, perhaps Yamiche Alcindor.
They are doing good work!
I have to agree with O'Donnell. The media is not afraid to attack democrats because they fear no reprisal. They are very timid with trump and other right wingers. I've seen Katie Tur get walked all over by right wingers because she seemed to be afraid of them and that is common with the media.
Thank you, Margaret, for all you do working to improve journalism. We are grateful that you are featuring our guidelines.
Americans deserve better from newsrooms. In pursuit of profit and access, the news industry has lost sight of its moral obligation to thoroughly inform voters of the policy positions and fitness of candidates for office. We deserve in depth coverage of important issues, not endless speculation that turns consequential politics into dumbed down sports reporting.
Here is a link to read the guidelines, see who has signed, and sign on, if so moved:
https://www.mediaanddemocracyproject.org/2024-election-coverage
"In pursuit of profit and access, the news industry has lost sight of its moral obligation to thoroughly inform voters of the policy positions and fitness of candidates for office. We deserve in depth coverage of important issues, not endless speculation that turns consequential politics into dumbed down sports reporting."
Admittedly a dumb question but anyone can jump in with ideas: Is there anything we can tweek within the tax code that would purportedly allow media companies to pursue more thorough journalism without risking their bottom line?
If Harris does an interview - and I think there are good reasons why she never should - the ONLY interviewer I would trust is Lawrence O'Donnell. He was one of the few voices of reason as the pack was baying for Biden's blood, and he did a solid risk/benefit analysis of a candidate switch - something I saw no other journalist do. He would ask truly important questions and have a respectful, POSITIVE discussion...whereas other journalists are showing a knee-jerk antipathy for the enthusiasm and joy Harris has generated, clearly itching to pop the Kamalot bubble. They'd use an interview to slap voters across the face and scream, "Snap out of it!", rather than just accept that for once, something wonderful and good is happening. Only O'Donnell would respect the Harris/Walz movement and would not (unconsciously or deliberately) try to destroy its hope, pride, and power. To save democracy, we have to stay energized and mobilized, and we can't do that if we listen to the despair being spread by Trump AND the media. People are wrong to accuse the media of a liberal bias, I think. Their real bias is negativity.
Also...thank you for spotlighting that letter to the media. I'll read it in full and share it. :)
I’d choose you, or someone like you. She shouldn’t reward the MSM for their abject failure to treat democracy as the preeminent issue in this election. She should do an interview with someone who values the stakes more than the horse race, and tell NYT, Wapo and the rest to pound salt until they decide to finally do their job.
WaPo's recent spate of appalling leadership decisions wouldn't suggest they're thinking about doing their job (as you and I define it) anytime soon.
Newsroom leadership isn't, but a few staffers -- Jennifer Rubin and Philip Bump come immediately to mind, typically do.
Yes, leadership. And there are more than Rubin and Bump, but those two are exceptional.
Hear, hear.
Jon Stewart would get my vote! He’s a serious thinker, asks great questions, and defies the group think of the political press. I couldn’t agree more with what readers told you about the mainstream media!
Thank you so much for your advocacy for better media in service of DEMOCRACY, and for the Media and Democracy Project! We're grateful for everyone who has signed on and amplified here https://mediaanddemocracyproject.substack.com/
Nicolle Wallace is one of the very few women over 50 who are allowed to be on network television. She is 100 times more thoughtful and honest than most of the faces still allowed on the networks. She might be the very few I would trust to handle an interview, which is why I still disagree with the press conference proposal.
I'm thinking of Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Jonathan Swan.
I would pick you.
I'm less worried about the need for Harris to have a press conference or sit-down right now than a lot of people, mainly because Harris has said she'd have one or both before the end of the month. That actually should be perfectly satisfactory given that she had only a few weeks -- not the normal months or years -- to prepare and form this presidential campaign and name a running mate before the Democratic National Convention. If she keeps this promise, I'll be satisfied.
Given the choice between a news conference and a sit-down interview, I would prefer to see a sit-down interview. As to who should conduct it, I would say Lawrence O'Donnell or else one of the many veteran journalists at the BBC who has a demonstrated ability to keep the subjects on topic, to call out B.S., and to either get an answer or ensure that no answer will be forthcoming and make that clear to the audience.
U.S. news coverage of this campaign has been largely awful, with a few honorable exceptions -- O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Charlie Pierce at Esquire, Jennifer Rubin at the Post. The idea of letting the herd of swine that, for the most part, is the U.S. news media shout pointless questions at Harris for 90 minutes should be a nonstarter until they, as a group, have demonstrated more journalistic skill.