Response to NY Times Analysis of VP Harris Interview
Dear Mr. Epstein,
I just read your analysis of Vice President Harris’s interview on MSNBC, and was surprised by your takeaways.
Question Dodging Criticism
In particular, you suggested that her answers “dodged” the questions she was being asked. This seems to me to be a somewhat ridiculous criticism given the nature of those questions.
Polls and Economic Perception
Why, to cite your first example, should a candidate for president know why polls indicate that voters give Trump higher marks on the economy than she? And why would the voters care what her answer to this question is?
Divining the meaning of polls is the preoccupation of analysts like yourself and maybe Harris’s campaign staff, but why would voters need a president to tell them why they feel the way they do?
It makes sense that rather than answering a pointless question to which she couldn’t possibly be expected to know the answer, she instead made her case to the voters that she would be better on the economy than Trump.
The Senate Question
Similarly with the question about the Senate. VP Harris has no control over who wins the Senate and like every other president will have to find ways to maneuver whatever the circumstances happen to be.
How would her answer to this question have any relevance to voters in making their choice for president?
NY Times Bias
My takeaway from your analysis is that you are continuing to push the view articulated by your editor that only the NY Times is capable of conducting a serious interview and that as long as Ms. Harris continues to ignore your requests you will continue hammering her for “dodging.”
Based on your analysis here, I would say that your “seriousness” in this regard is far from established.
Yours,
FAQs on the Email to Reid J. Epstein of the NY Times
This section addresses frequently asked questions related to the email sent by Reid J. Epstein of the NY Times.
1. What is the context of the email?
The email in question is a response from Reid J. Epstein of the NY Times to a query or inquiry about a specific political topic or event.
2. Who is Reid J. Epstein?
Reid J. Epstein is a journalist and political reporter for the New York Times, known for his in-depth coverage of U.S. politics and elections.
3. What was the main subject of the email?
The main subject of the email appears to be a discussion or clarification regarding a recent political development or event.
4. What is the significance of this email?
The significance lies in its potential impact on public perception and understanding of current political issues, as well as its reflection of journalistic inquiry and reporting standards.
5. How did the recipient respond to the email?
The recipient’s response is not explicitly detailed in the provided content, but it likely involves further clarification or additional information based on the inquiry.
6. What are some key points discussed in the email?
The key points discussed would depend on the specific content of the email, which includes details about recent political events, statements from politicians, or other relevant information.
7. Is there any controversy surrounding this email?
Without specific details from the email itself, it’s difficult to determine if there is any controversy surrounding it. However, any email from a prominent journalist like Reid J. Epstein could potentially attract attention and scrutiny.
8. How does this email reflect journalistic ethics?
The email reflects journalistic ethics by demonstrating a commitment to seeking clarity and accuracy in reporting. It shows an effort to understand and report on complex political issues effectively.
9. Can I read the full email online?
The full email is not publicly available online as per the provided link from Daily Kos, which only offers a summary or excerpt of it.
10. What implications might this email have for future reporting?
The implications could include a more nuanced understanding of current political dynamics and potentially influence future reporting by setting a standard for thorough inquiry and clarification.
