Associated Press Rightly Called Out Over Report On Kamala Harris’s Favorite Foods as She Continues to Dodge Media

Screenshot/X

Conservatives on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) ripped the Associated Press Sunday morning after the wire service reported Vice President Kamala Harris is using food to relate to voters amid complaints she is dodging reporters.

Harris’s most ardent critics have claimed both she and the national media are working together to insulate her from negative headlines. Given her propensity for avoiding the spotlight since she became the Democratic Party’s nominee, their frustration is not unfounded.

While Harris did sit down with her running mate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash last week, the VP has been mostly missing in action when it comes to pressers and media questions with under two months until Election Day.

That CNN sit-down has been the only formal interview with the Democratic nominee since she took Biden’s place. Bash handled the interview with care – balancing respect for the office while asking legitimate questions on policy and other issues of note or that have concerned voters .

On the whole, the national press have declined to highlight that lack of openness or her evasion of settings that would require unscripted responses – a lapse in what is ostensibly their responsibility in informing voters about the candidates. And that’s despite the fact that her cloistering has been mentioned by the mainstream media, at least enough to dismiss it .

If that feels like a slight to undecided voters, independents, or typically Republican voters, it is only insult to injury, then, that the AP, rather than pursuing Harris-Walz more doggedly on answering voter concerns, instead published and shared a puff piece on Sunday admiring Harris’s affinity for food – something everyone enjoys.

After a week that saw the publisher delete a tweet that mischaracterized a comment from Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) on mass shootings, conservatives lashed out when the AP wrote in earnest about how Harris has “turned to her favorite foods in [an] effort show a more private side and connect with voters.”

While the AP story itself did note that Harris the person is a comparative question mark among politicians for many voters, it failed to connect the human interest to the choice voters face in any meaningful way. The piece lacked any context that would surely be added to any piece about a Republican, such as the cost of groceries, and its existence as a standalone in a field of virtually no other illuminating profiles detailing, say, her record as a prosecutor or even as a VP.

The AP also earned scorn from conservatives quote of JD Vance in the wake of a school shooting, in a post to X that the wire service later deleted and replaced, using a fuller quote for context. The initial version absolutely changed the tenor and character of the comments dramatically, and their initial, selectively edited version was then used by the Harris campaign to bash Vance in a deceptive, inaccurate way .

Americans are historically divided with fewer than two months until Harris will face Trump in the general election. The AP and other outlets have a duty to help voters know as much about the candidates as possible, and to cover each campaign on its own merits and mistakes – and yes, even their affinity for food or taste in music, to an extent.

But voters know plenty about Trump’s policy positions, his legal troubles, his temperament, his love for fast food, his golf game, and a lot more they’d probably rather not know. Most especially, they know that he’ll be challenged on his every policy preference and position, and even how he’s voting on referendums in Florida. Can the same be said for Harris? Is she voting on any in California? Do you know?

A Sunday piece from the AP about Harris’s plans for the country, one that has seen better days economically than under the current administration in which she serves, would have served everyone better than a puff piece about her relationship to food. But even if not instead of – alongside would have been good.

Such a piece also would have helped the AP and mainstream media in general win back some credibility among the literally millions of Americans who no longer place any trust in their objectivity or diligence.