Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has not held a formal press conference or sit-down interview in the 27 days since effectively replacing President Biden on the ticket.
According to Fox News, while Harris has been actively campaigning and speaking at events, she has yet to participate in a wide-ranging interview or formal press conference since becoming the party's likely nominee. This extended period without direct media engagement has drawn attention and criticism from various quarters.
The lack of formal media interactions stands in contrast to her opponents' approaches. Former President Donald Trump, for instance, has held multiple press conferences and interviews during the same period. On August 17, it was reported that Trump had answered 81 questions in pressers and interviews since August 6, including a two-hour session with Elon Musk.
While Harris has been conducting brief "gaggles" and off-the-record sessions with traveling reporters, she has not engaged in formal press interactions. This approach differs significantly from that of her opponents. Trump's recent press conference at Bedminster marked his second in a week, demonstrating a more open stance towards media engagement.
The Republican vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, has also been more accessible to the press. On August 11, Vance participated in interviews with three Sunday shows, facing questions from CNN, CBS, and ABC. In contrast, Harris and her running mate Tim Walz opted to send surrogates for these appearances.
During a press conference in Detroit, Vance urged reporters to push Harris to "do the job of a presidential candidate" by speaking to them directly. He emphasized the importance of candidates being accessible to the media during the campaign period.
The Harris campaign's approach to media interactions has not gone unnoticed by various stakeholders. The left-leaning Washington Post editorial board challenged Harris over her apparent avoidance of the media, noting that even her opponent, Trump, "has taken questions." The editorial board called on Harris to address her numerous policy shifts on issues such as fracking, border security, and private health insurance.
CNN anchor Jim Acosta publicly urged the campaign to conduct interviews, asking Harris's communications director, Michael Tyler, "Would it kill you guys" to do one? Tyler responded by reiterating a vague pledge that Harris would participate in an interview by the end of the month.
Michael Tyler, speaking on behalf of the Harris campaign, stated:
We will commit to directly engage with the voters who are actually going to decide this election. And that is going to be complete with rallies, with sit-down interviews, with press conferences, with all the digital assets that we have at our disposal.
While some critics argue for more direct media engagement, others defend Harris's approach. CNN commentator and former Bill Clinton aide Paul Begala downplayed the importance of press conferences, responding, "Who cares?" when questioned about the issue.
Former Obama administration ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, suggested that winning should be Harris's primary focus. He argued that if press conferences do not contribute to this goal, there is no obligation to conduct them. However, this stance appears to contradict his earlier statements emphasizing the importance of transparency and engagement with the press.
The Harris campaign has defended its strategy, stating that their priority is to reach voters effectively in a fragmented media environment. They emphasized the use of paid media, on-the-ground organizing, and an aggressive campaign schedule as key components of their approach.
Vice President Kamala Harris has not held a formal press conference or sit-down interview for 27 days since becoming the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. This approach contrasts with the more frequent media engagements of her opponents, including former President Trump and GOP vice-presidential candidate JD Vance. The campaign's strategy has drawn both criticism and defense from various quarters, with some calling for more direct media interaction and others supporting the focus on alternative voter outreach methods.
