I don't think you made your case here. If the structural shifts in media and journalism mean that candidates can just reach directly to voters, and voters like that, what's going to put the genie back in the bottle and why? Especially if the upside is mollifying left intellectuals who probably will just get mad about something else. The best argument here is for doing more town halls, but that's just another way to bypass traditional journalism.
I think it’s funny that “blue Maga” is apparently used by some to mean “normal left of center people” when in reality it should mean the far left.
I’ve been saying this for a bit before I heard of “blue MAGA” but it’s the dead end far left who will say things have gotten/are getting worse than ever…which means they were better at some point before and the optimal thing would be to return to those times…again.
VP Harris appears to be running a basement campaign, tight, scripted and ambiguous. Yglesias makes very interesting observations, key being her job is to win. Nevertheless, this uncommitted voter needs to hear her articulate a position on say, Ukraine, that is better than a 1st grade primer or an incomprehensible mash. Without that demonstrated I don’t understand how she can be president.
I know a bunch of people are saying "Kamala should go on Joe Rogan." But Walz seems like he'd be a great emissary for that audience, or at least one who has overlapping interests.
Weird hypocritical take from Matt. He’s repeatedly pointed out that Trump’s policy proposal are undercovered by the media. But now that Harris’s policy proposals are sort of unclear, it’s bad that the media wants to ask her specific policy questions?
It seems to me that Kamala should do a sitdown interview with someone no-one would describe as a softball interviewer, someone who has a line of destroyed careers under his mic, but also someone who would ask real policy questions that affect the public and wouldn't care about process questions or whatever the current frothy controversy is.
Is it just me, or is that a description of Isaac Chotiner?
I always wanted to see Brian Lamb (or a Brian Lamb C-Span acolyte) interview candidates. He would ask anything with a straight face but never gotcha questions and he mixed in some personal questions that people might be curious about.
I think politicians have almost nothing to gain from formal interviews. The risks are high if they stumble. The rewards are low if they do well. Buttigieg and Walz were not national figures when they started their hit parades. Harris already is. Being good at interviews is not an essential skill for being good at governing. Only the most talented do both well, and neither candidate fits that category this cycle. But I know nothing about Harris. She might be talented. After one interview, I might find out she isn't. Thus why she shouldn't do interviews until after the election.
I can't help but think that there's been a ton of damage to 'normie-lib' perceptions of the classic media this year, a spreading sentiment replacing the sort of 'democracy dies in darkness' civic enthusiasm of the trump years with a more hostile perception of the political press as petty and vindictive yet simultaneously disinterested in a substantial political issues beyond their ability to be leveraged for access. For institutions that have become ever more reliant on subscriptions rather than clicks this could end poorly
That said, I've also read that the Washington Post is getting lots of clicks these days, so what do I know
Half-serious answer - as long as she doesn't speak to the New York Times before Election Day.
More serious answer - as pointed out below, if you go back to the 80's and 90's, you see A-list movie stars saying by 2024 standards, pretty insane things (not woke/not-woke, but just personally revealing) in various magazines, TV interviews, and more.
Now, everything is held close to the vest, and limited, and despite in some ways thinking you know more about stars because of social media, we actually know truly far less about A-list stars than anytime since probably the studio era.
Quite a subtle bit of disinformation work here, with Matthew quoting David Bauder of the AP saying Trump only does friendly interviews. Guess he was on holiday and missed the CNN town hall, the Black journalists meeting and the numerous press scrums. Matthew often makes good points but his TDS interferes with his judgement
I wish that I could agree with you on this, Matt, but this time I have to take a pass. Walter Cronkite's been dead a long, long time, and it's been about that long since the US Press (IMHO) has shown any real interest in identifying and presenting facts and objective analysis and making readers and viewers smarter or better informed. Instead, it's populated mostly by cynical nihilists whose only goal seems to be to debunk and discredit anyone who shows any sign of ideals, civic virtue, or competence, and to lionize grotesques like Trump, often with unseemly glee.
Good for Kamala! Asking her why she doesn't spend any more time than she must with THAT Press is like asking her why she doesn't spend more time cuddling mangy, rabid dogs. The question answers itself.
(1) There's a lack of demand from normie/swing voters for consuming political news. Journalists are asking process questions and annoying policy questions because that's what their readers want. (2) What kinds of questions should Harris want to answer in an interview, if not process questions nor policy questions?
The celebrity counterexample that continues to fascinate me is Beyonce. Hasn't spoken to the press in what...a decade? Arguably bigger than Taylor Swift but at least punching at her level. Clearly has no need or interest in ever opening her mouth again in a live public setting except to sing.
Beyonce presents herself as royalty. She has a better voice than Taylor Swift, better dancing than Taylor Swift, etc. It's the 19th century monarch model and she's probably the last one who will ever pull it off.
Taylor doesn't have that. What she does have (beyond songwriting) is relatability. She can't do the Beyonce model, but has succeeded wildly with a different model: being just like you. The 21st century politician model.
I don't think you made your case here. If the structural shifts in media and journalism mean that candidates can just reach directly to voters, and voters like that, what's going to put the genie back in the bottle and why? Especially if the upside is mollifying left intellectuals who probably will just get mad about something else. The best argument here is for doing more town halls, but that's just another way to bypass traditional journalism.
I think it’s funny that “blue Maga” is apparently used by some to mean “normal left of center people” when in reality it should mean the far left.
I’ve been saying this for a bit before I heard of “blue MAGA” but it’s the dead end far left who will say things have gotten/are getting worse than ever…which means they were better at some point before and the optimal thing would be to return to those times…again.
VP Harris appears to be running a basement campaign, tight, scripted and ambiguous. Yglesias makes very interesting observations, key being her job is to win. Nevertheless, this uncommitted voter needs to hear her articulate a position on say, Ukraine, that is better than a 1st grade primer or an incomprehensible mash. Without that demonstrated I don’t understand how she can be president.
I know a bunch of people are saying "Kamala should go on Joe Rogan." But Walz seems like he'd be a great emissary for that audience, or at least one who has overlapping interests.
Harris going might earn respect, but Walz genuinely might earn votes.
Weird hypocritical take from Matt. He’s repeatedly pointed out that Trump’s policy proposal are undercovered by the media. But now that Harris’s policy proposals are sort of unclear, it’s bad that the media wants to ask her specific policy questions?
It seems to me that Kamala should do a sitdown interview with someone no-one would describe as a softball interviewer, someone who has a line of destroyed careers under his mic, but also someone who would ask real policy questions that affect the public and wouldn't care about process questions or whatever the current frothy controversy is.
Is it just me, or is that a description of Isaac Chotiner?
I always wanted to see Brian Lamb (or a Brian Lamb C-Span acolyte) interview candidates. He would ask anything with a straight face but never gotcha questions and he mixed in some personal questions that people might be curious about.
I think politicians have almost nothing to gain from formal interviews. The risks are high if they stumble. The rewards are low if they do well. Buttigieg and Walz were not national figures when they started their hit parades. Harris already is. Being good at interviews is not an essential skill for being good at governing. Only the most talented do both well, and neither candidate fits that category this cycle. But I know nothing about Harris. She might be talented. After one interview, I might find out she isn't. Thus why she shouldn't do interviews until after the election.
I can't help but think that there's been a ton of damage to 'normie-lib' perceptions of the classic media this year, a spreading sentiment replacing the sort of 'democracy dies in darkness' civic enthusiasm of the trump years with a more hostile perception of the political press as petty and vindictive yet simultaneously disinterested in a substantial political issues beyond their ability to be leveraged for access. For institutions that have become ever more reliant on subscriptions rather than clicks this could end poorly
That said, I've also read that the Washington Post is getting lots of clicks these days, so what do I know
Half-serious answer - as long as she doesn't speak to the New York Times before Election Day.
More serious answer - as pointed out below, if you go back to the 80's and 90's, you see A-list movie stars saying by 2024 standards, pretty insane things (not woke/not-woke, but just personally revealing) in various magazines, TV interviews, and more.
Now, everything is held close to the vest, and limited, and despite in some ways thinking you know more about stars because of social media, we actually know truly far less about A-list stars than anytime since probably the studio era.
Quite a subtle bit of disinformation work here, with Matthew quoting David Bauder of the AP saying Trump only does friendly interviews. Guess he was on holiday and missed the CNN town hall, the Black journalists meeting and the numerous press scrums. Matthew often makes good points but his TDS interferes with his judgement
I wish that I could agree with you on this, Matt, but this time I have to take a pass. Walter Cronkite's been dead a long, long time, and it's been about that long since the US Press (IMHO) has shown any real interest in identifying and presenting facts and objective analysis and making readers and viewers smarter or better informed. Instead, it's populated mostly by cynical nihilists whose only goal seems to be to debunk and discredit anyone who shows any sign of ideals, civic virtue, or competence, and to lionize grotesques like Trump, often with unseemly glee.
Good for Kamala! Asking her why she doesn't spend any more time than she must with THAT Press is like asking her why she doesn't spend more time cuddling mangy, rabid dogs. The question answers itself.
A press conference for Kamala would be a word salad unburdened by what has been.
If it’s any consolation, I don’t think you’re important at all.
I just like the stuff you say and your performance on podcasts.
(1) There's a lack of demand from normie/swing voters for consuming political news. Journalists are asking process questions and annoying policy questions because that's what their readers want. (2) What kinds of questions should Harris want to answer in an interview, if not process questions nor policy questions?
The celebrity counterexample that continues to fascinate me is Beyonce. Hasn't spoken to the press in what...a decade? Arguably bigger than Taylor Swift but at least punching at her level. Clearly has no need or interest in ever opening her mouth again in a live public setting except to sing.
It's a different model.
Beyonce presents herself as royalty. She has a better voice than Taylor Swift, better dancing than Taylor Swift, etc. It's the 19th century monarch model and she's probably the last one who will ever pull it off.
Taylor doesn't have that. What she does have (beyond songwriting) is relatability. She can't do the Beyonce model, but has succeeded wildly with a different model: being just like you. The 21st century politician model.
Beyonce apparently doesn't do a lot of interviews, but a Google search shows she did one with Essence earlier this year.