DON'T WAIT.

We publish the objective news, period. If you want the facts, then sign up below and join our movement for objective news:

TOP STORIES

Latest News

WSJ Editorial Criticizes Harris for Joint Interview with Walz

 August 30, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris has come under scrutiny from the Wall Street Journal editorial board for choosing to conduct her first interview as the Democratic presidential nominee alongside her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

The editorial board suggested that the decision to do a joint interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, which aired Thursday night, was a deliberate attempt to avoid tough questions and to allow Walz to help shield Harris from direct scrutiny and turn the direction of the discussion as needed, as Fox News reports.

The WSJ editorial board argued that Harris was using Walz as a “crutch” during the interview, implying that this format would prevent a deeper, more direct engagement with the interviewer. The board expressed concerns that Walz’s presence would limit the time Harris would need to answer questions and complicate efforts by Bash to ask follow-up questions.

Harris Criticized for Avoiding Tough Interviews

The editorial board’s critique extended beyond this specific interview. They noted that since President Biden endorsed Harris’s candidacy, she had not participated in any unscripted press conferences or tough interviews for 39 days. The board suggested that the choice of a joint interview format was yet another example of Harris’s campaign avoiding direct voter engagement.

Further, the editorial board labeled the decision as “one more Harris campaign insult to American voters.” They argued that the joint interview approach would not provide voters with a clear view of Harris’s positions and abilities, reinforcing their claim that she was the “least known presidential candidate in modern history.”

Conservative Voices Echo WSJ’s Concerns

Conservative media figures also weighed in on Harris’s decision for a joint interview. Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, criticized the vice president for needing a "handler" during interviews, likening it to President Biden's reported need for assistance in everyday tasks. Phil Kerpen, another conservative commentator, questioned whether there would ever be an interview featuring Harris alone, further highlighting the skepticism surrounding her campaign strategy.

The WSJ editorial board underscored their belief that Harris's handlers were deliberately minimizing her exposure to challenging questions. They suggested that if Harris’s team had respect for the voters, they should let her “stand alone and answer questions by herself.”

Editorial Board Lists Accusations Against Harris

The editorial board went on to criticize the overall strategy of Harris's campaign, claiming she was avoiding substantive engagement with voters. It accused Harris of being "handed the nomination in an inside job" and of maintaining a strategy to "float at 40,000 feet from here to November," implying she would remain out of reach and avoid any detailed disclosure of her policies or plans.

The board added that the interview strategy was reflective of broader efforts by Harris’s campaign to avoid scrutiny. It further alleged that her views on key issues were unclear due to the lack of detailed questioning by the press.

Harris Campaign Defends Interview Format

A representative from the Harris campaign defended the decision to conduct a joint interview, arguing that it aligns with common practices from both Republican and Democratic campaigns over the past two decades. The spokesperson noted that there was only one notable exception to this practice when Donald Trump left a joint interview with 60 Minutes four years ago, after facing controversial questions from Lesley Stahl.

The Harris campaign's defense suggested that the criticism from the Wall Street Journal and other conservative voices was unwarranted. They maintained that a joint interview was a standard approach and not an attempt to avoid accountability or tough questions.

Campaign Strategy Questioned Amidst Growing Scrutiny

Despite the Harris campaign's defense, the editorial board’s criticism highlights a broader issue about transparency and accountability in political campaigns. The board's assertion that Harris is the "least known presidential candidate in modern history" reflects ongoing concerns among some voters and commentators about her visibility and accessibility.

The accusation that Harris was “handed the nomination” and is avoiding direct engagement with the public has raised questions about her campaign's overall strategy. The editorial suggested that voters deserve to see more of Harris in unscripted, direct interviews, where she would have to answer tough questions without the support of her running mate.

Interview Format Sparks Debate Over Voter Respect

The debate over Harris’s decision to participate in a joint interview also touches on larger issues of transparency and respect for voters. By suggesting that her campaign handlers are shielding her, the editorial board framed this as an issue of democratic accountability. They argued that the voters deserve a clear view of who Harris is and what she stands for, without the mediation of a running mate.

This critique from the Wall Street Journal is not an isolated incident but part of a broader narrative questioning Harris’s readiness and visibility as a presidential candidate. The ongoing discussions about her media strategy suggest that her campaign might face continued scrutiny as the election approaches.

Future Interviews Could Shape Campaign Narrative

As the campaign progresses, how Harris and her team choose to engage with the media and voters could significantly impact public perception. If the criticism from conservative voices and media outlets like the Wall Street Journal continues, Harris might need to adjust her approach to demonstrate more transparency and direct engagement.

The outcome of the scheduled joint interview with CNN's Dana Bash and the response from the public and media could also shape the narrative around Harris's campaign. Whether this format will help or hinder her campaign remains to be seen, but it has undoubtedly sparked a debate on how candidates should engage with voters.

As Harris and Walz prepared for their joint interview, the scrutiny surrounding their media strategy served as a reminder of the critical role that public perception plays in a presidential campaign. The reactions to this interview could provide a glimpse into the strategies and challenges that will define the race moving forward.