Harris-Walz Campaign: A Missed Opportunity by CNN
Last night, the mainstream media—represented by CNN interviewer Dana Bash—failed their first big test of the Harris-Walz campaign. The interview was supposed to be a fair balance between giving the candidates a chance to answer challenges from the opposition, exploring their character, and explaining how Harris and Walz would govern. Unfortunately, Dana Bash did not meet this test.
Missed Opportunities in the Interview
The interview had some good moments, like asking what President Harris would do on Day One and discussing an iconic photo from the DNC. There were also questions about Walz’s reaction to his now nationally-beloved son, Gus. However, most of the questions were either:
- Vapid: Like asking about Trump’s racial insult.
- Disingenuous: Asking why Harris hasn’t already fulfilled all her policy priorities without mentioning the hostile House of Representatives or right-wing Supreme Court.
- Needling: Trying to catch Harris off guard about her change of mind on fracking.
Many questions were worded to make Harris and Walz seem untrustworthy. The interview borrowed too much from dishonest right-wing framing, like emphasizing an “inflation crisis” despite surging retail sales. It provided no new information beyond what Harris and Walz have already been saying directly to voters. This did nothing to help the journalistic mission of safeguarding democracy.
CNN’s Intentions and Failures
From the MSM’s point of view, Bash failed in their mission too. Their unspoken but clear intent was to stop the momentum of the Harris-Walz campaign. They likely see the writing on the wall—an approaching Blue tsunami that threatens their bottom line. To prevent this, they needed moments where Harris and Walz looked flustered, embarrassed, angry, or weak.
Instead, Harris and Walz were calm and collected. They pivoted to their talking points and sidestepped the gotcha moments. It seems obvious that the campaign agreed to do this interview just to tick a box. They knew it wouldn’t help their campaign but could potentially hurt it. So, they went in with the approach of “Do no harm”—give firm but uncontroversial answers, be pleasant but not overly enthusiastic, defend Biden and his policies, and make mild contrasts with Trump. In all this, they succeeded, which means that CNN blew it.
The Bigger Picture
In one way, CNN did succeed at something. They clearly demonstrated why Harris-Walz, and the public in general, have no need for them. This effort by CNN merely confirmed the growing awareness that the legacy political press is now irrelevant if not outright harmful to the civic life of America. So long as they continue down this path, their influence will continue to wane. Last night was a serious blow to CNN and the legacy political press they represent. It isn’t clear how or even if they recover.
FAQs on Legacy Media and CNN
This section addresses common questions and concerns related to the performance of legacy media outlets, particularly CNN, and their interactions with political figures.
