Harris-Walz Campaign Interview Analysis
Last night, the mainstream media—represented by CNN interviewer Dana Bash—failed their first big test of the Harris-Walz campaign. They were supposed to give a fair interview, balancing tough questions with giving the candidates a chance to explain their plans. Unfortunately, Dana Bash did not meet this test.
Missed Opportunities for Fair Questions
The interview had some good moments, like asking what President Harris would do on Day One and talking about an iconic photo from the DNC. But most questions were either too simple or unfair. For example:
- Questions about Trump’s racial insult were too basic.
- Asking why Harris hasn’t fulfilled all her policy priorities ignored the challenges of a hostile House of Representatives and a right-wing Supreme Court.
- Questions about Harris’s change of mind on fracking seemed like attempts to trap her.
Many questions made it seem like Harris and Walz are untrustworthy. This kind of questioning borrowed too much from dishonest right-wing ideas, like saying there is an “inflation crisis” despite surging retail sales.
Failing the Journalistic Mission
The interview did not provide new information beyond what Harris and Walz have already been saying directly to voters. It also did not help in safeguarding democracy, which is a key mission of journalism.
CNN’s Intentions
From the point of view of the mainstream media (MSM), Bash failed in their mission too. Their goal seemed to be to stop the momentum of the Harris-Walz campaign. They likely see a strong Democratic wave coming, which they fear might hurt their ratings. To prevent this, they needed moments where Harris or Walz looked bad. Instead, Harris and Walz stayed calm and stuck to their talking points.
Harris-Walz Strategy
It seems clear that the Harris-Walz campaign agreed to the interview just to check a box. They knew it wouldn’t help them but could potentially hurt them. So, their strategy was to “Do no harm.” They gave firm but safe answers to tough questions, were pleasant on easy questions, defended Biden and his policies, and made mild contrasts with Trump. In all this, they succeeded, which means CNN failed.
Impact on CNN and Legacy Media
In one way, CNN did succeed at something. They showed why Harris-Walz, and the public in general, don’t need them. This interview confirmed that the old political press is becoming irrelevant and even harmful to American civic life. If they continue down this path, their influence will keep shrinking. Last night was a serious blow to CNN and the legacy political press they represent. It’s unclear how or if they will recover.
