Opinion: The Media Still Needs Training On How To Deal With A Powerful Black Woman

Why would any Black person defend their blackness to a white person in an interview?

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.”

Even before Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, sat down with Bash for their first interview since becoming the Democratic nominees for president and vice president, I rejected the notion that the occasion would be as important as some circles of the media had been suggesting it might be.

Because I knew there would be stupid questions like this.

In the weeks after President Joe Biden ended his 2024 reelection campaign, Harris found herself increasingly criticized over not having scheduled some sort of news conference or press interview.

As some members of the press ― notably the Beltway media that dominate the shaping of our political coverage ― insisted on air, in print and across social media that it was vital that Harris allow herself to be subjected to media scrutiny.

To them, she needed to prove she could handle an unscripted moment. And she had to explain her policy positions ― past, present and future ― directly to the American people with appropriate pushback from a journalist. Only then, the notion went, would Harris prove how serious her campaign would be following what was often described by these same folks as “the honeymoon period.”

Yet, as 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.”

In fact, since a presidential bid that began just a little over a month ago, she has routinely engaged in multiple press events on the campaign trail.

It was not as if she had been ignoring the press corps, which is why I rolled my eyes at headlines like “Trump’s Press Conference Was Not good. But He’s Still Better for America Than Harris.” and “Kamala Harris Must Speak to the Press.”

Do I believe Kamala Harris should answer questions related to her campaign?
Yes, but I don’t think she necessarily should take that many from cable news anchors and political reporters from mainstream outlets, and her CNN interview is a prime example why.

I do not share T he New York Times’ Reid J. Epstein’s view that “Dana Bash navigated a tough night adeptly.”

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.

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.

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.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake spoke of the interview on the “Post Reports” podcast as if the central point of it was to prove whether “Kamala Harris could kind of live up to the hype.”

Whose hype exactly? And isn’t this all supposed to be about informing voters?

Worst of all the takes, though, is a Politico piece slamming Harris for “evading questions about her identity.”

Those are the kind of stories that ought to remind the public of how badly the newsrooms across the country need real diversity.

NBC’s Chuck Todd recently penned an opinion piece encouraging Harris and other candidates to adopt Trump’s approach in 2016 of embracing “all media as good for him, whether he thought the interviewer was a friendly, a neutral or an opponent” and sit down for an interview once a week.

Yet we know how imbalanced the political press has become and continues to be in its Trump coverage , and Trump himself has turned to podcasters and YouTubers to reach voters rather than meeting with the traditional press outlets.

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.

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 encourage Harris to continue spreading her message to the public, but if she decides to forgo traditional media, I won’t completely fault her.

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.