Last night, the mainstream media—represented by CNN interviewer Dana Bash—failed their first big test of the Harris-Walz campaign. In question was their ability to provide a good-faith interview that was a fair balance between giving the candidates a chance to answer challenges from the opposition, explorations of character, and the opportunity to articulate how Harris and Walz would govern. Unfortunately, Dana Bash failed to meet this test.
The interview was not wholly absent of such attempts, such as the generic question of what a President Harris would do on Day One and the softball questions regarding Harris’s take on an iconic photo from the DNC and Walz’s reaction to his now nationally-beloved son, Gus. These exceptions aside, the interview questions were either vapid (e.g. Trump’s racial insult), disingenuous (e.g. why Harris, as Vice President, hasn’t somehow already fulfilled all her policy priorities, without mentioning a hostile House of Representatives or right-wing SCOTUS), or simply needling in an attempt for a gotcha (e.g. harping on Harris’s change of mind about fracking). In fact, many of the questions were worded in such a way as to insinuate that both Harris and Walz are untrustworthy and unknowable. As such, the overall quality of the interview was poor in that it borrowed too heavily from dishonest right-wing framing (e.g. emphatically saying there is an “inflation crisis” despite surging retail sales), provided no information beyond what Harris and Walz have already been saying directly to voters, and did nothing to forward the foundational journalistic mission of safeguarding democracy.
From the point of view of the MSM, Bash failed in their mission as well. Their unspoken but clear intent was to blunt, if not altogether stop the runaway train of the Harris-Walz campaign. They likely see the writing on the wall—an approaching Blue tsunami that they fear threatens their bottom line. To prevent this and to maintain a tight horserace, they needed potentially-viral moments where Harris and/or Walz were flustered, embarrassed, angry, or weak-looking. Instead, Harris and Walz were almost bland in their responses and demeanor, ably pivoting to their talking points and sidestepping the gotcha moments. It seems obvious that the campaign agreed to do this simply to tick a box, knowing it wouldn’t help their campaign but could potentially hurt it. As such, they went in with the approach of “Do no harm”—give firm but uncontroversial answers to the gotchas, be pleasant but not effusive on the softballs, defend Biden and his policies, and make mild body-blow contrasts with Trump. In all this they succeeded, which means that CNN blew it.
In one way, CNN did succeed at something. They clearly demonstrated why Harris-Walz, and the public in general, have no need for them. This effort by CNN merely confirmed the growing awareness that the legacy political press is now irrelevant if not outright harmful to the civic life of America. So long as they continue down this path, their influence will continue to wane. Last night was a serious blow to CNN and the legacy political press they represent. It isn’t clear how or even if they recover.