I couldn't agree more. Why suck the air out of the campaign by doing a press interview at this point? Or maybe at any point, though I suppose eventually she has to. But as much as I appreciate your analysis, more importantly thanks for reminding me of one of the all-time best political comedy routines. Mulaney captured exactly what it was like during the Trump administration. I returned to that routine many times and him making me laugh at it all really helped me get through those years. (And if any your readers didn't catch it, go click on the horse in a hospital reference.)
What I’m finding funny about this whole discussion is that we’re seeing political journalism go the way of film and music criticism, and for many of the same reasons. There’s still an attitude with big political writers of how “Kamala had better give me a sit-down interview…or else.” As with the innumerable film and movie critics 25 years ago making threats of bad reviews unless they got sufficient swag and access to make them change their mind, their subjects responded “So else WHAT?” Chris Cillizza is no different from Rex Reed or Michael Corcoran in that his real issue is that the Harris campaign isn’t stepping up and yelling “HOW HIGH, SIR!” the moment he stamps his widdle foot about exclusive access. THAT right there is why political news coverage has such a horrible reputation with younger readers: they’ve gotten really good at spotting entitled alter kokkers from dealing with their parents and grandparents, and if they wanted to listen to has-been and never-were blowhards whining “Well, this is what _I’d_ do if I were Kamala Harris,” they’d just get on Facebook.
The problem here is that the news media has never been about the news. Once it reported news to command attention to sell advertising. Now, with news being ubiquitous, it sells hype and fear to capture attention to sell advertising.
I couldn't agree more. Why suck the air out of the campaign by doing a press interview at this point? Or maybe at any point, though I suppose eventually she has to. But as much as I appreciate your analysis, more importantly thanks for reminding me of one of the all-time best political comedy routines. Mulaney captured exactly what it was like during the Trump administration. I returned to that routine many times and him making me laugh at it all really helped me get through those years. (And if any your readers didn't catch it, go click on the horse in a hospital reference.)
What I’m finding funny about this whole discussion is that we’re seeing political journalism go the way of film and music criticism, and for many of the same reasons. There’s still an attitude with big political writers of how “Kamala had better give me a sit-down interview…or else.” As with the innumerable film and movie critics 25 years ago making threats of bad reviews unless they got sufficient swag and access to make them change their mind, their subjects responded “So else WHAT?” Chris Cillizza is no different from Rex Reed or Michael Corcoran in that his real issue is that the Harris campaign isn’t stepping up and yelling “HOW HIGH, SIR!” the moment he stamps his widdle foot about exclusive access. THAT right there is why political news coverage has such a horrible reputation with younger readers: they’ve gotten really good at spotting entitled alter kokkers from dealing with their parents and grandparents, and if they wanted to listen to has-been and never-were blowhards whining “Well, this is what _I’d_ do if I were Kamala Harris,” they’d just get on Facebook.
The problem here is that the news media has never been about the news. Once it reported news to command attention to sell advertising. Now, with news being ubiquitous, it sells hype and fear to capture attention to sell advertising.