No matter how badly Donald Trump fails to meet even the most rudimentary standards for a presidential candidate, it is essential that journalists thoroughly vet Kamala Harris.
The key, however, is to keep it in proportion and not make the same mistake the media made in 2016, obsessing over a minor Hillary Clinton scandal at the expense of focusing on Trump’s chronic perfidy. I have two suggestions for how to do that.
But first, let’s be clear: Like it or not, journalists covering the newly-transformed presidential race have an obligation to meticulously explore Harris’s views – and expose her flubs and flaws.
That’s because no candidate for president should be allowed to avoid the scrutiny of the media, no matter how much of a danger to democracy and freedom their opponent represents. No candidate should be immune from criticism. No candidate should be allowed to take office without the public knowing exactly what they care about, who they listen to, and who they would empower.
Journalists need to investigate Harris to learn more about how she would lead, and to begin the process of holding her accountable if she wins.
But how do journalists do that – and dig up the inevitable controversies and contradictions — without falsely equating her flaws with those of Donald Trump?
One way is to produce at least as many stories about Trump’s failings. That shouldn’t be hard, since those failings are incredibly numerous, and many of them appear to have been forgotten by the general public.
But I have another idea, too: In every story describing an arguable failure or shortcoming by Harris, journalists should devote at least a few paragraphs to applying the same standard to Trump.
The benefit of this approach is twofold. It would force reporters to explain in simple terms precisely what behavior on Harris’s part they are suggesting falls short of what standard – rather than publishing “gotchas” out of context, or just stringing together a bunch of nasty quotes. And then it would force them to address how Trump’s conduct stacks up.
For instance, if they’re writing about how Harris has fallen short as a manager, then they should note Trump’s long history of disastrous management, starting with his response to Covid and extending to his hiring of corrupt, incompetent and immoral people and the fact that a striking number of his former aides have announced they don’t support him.
If they’re writing about Harris having failed to sufficiently prosecute rogue banks as attorney general, then they should spend some time describing Trump’s relationship to finance – for instance, how he is beholden to the banks that have loaned him money, and that as president he rolled back critical regulations that had been implemented to protect taxpayers in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
If journalists write about how Harris falls short of Democratic expectations about holding corporate power accountable, it’s essential that they also remind the public that Trump would let corporations run roughshod over regulations, and would enable a kleptocracy.
If they’re writing about Harris’s mixed record in her mission to stem immigration, they should also take note of Trump’s views and proposed solutions, which are racist, bellicose and wildly impractical.
And if they’re writing about Harris’s pro-Israel take on Gaza or her statements against anti-Israel protests – both of them highly controversial, especially among progressives – they should put them in the context of Trump’s incredibly hardline views on Israel and his desire to stomp out protest.
Harris may be flawed. No, Harris most certainly is flawed. And journalists should be making that very clear. But the magnitude of her flaws is trivial compared to Trump’s, and journalists should be making that clear, too.
The investigative stories are surely already in the works. They are coming. And when they come, readers and viewers should not jump to conclusions about the motives of those reporters. They are not “in the tank” for Trump. They are doing their jobs.
But there are ways for them to do their job more responsibly than they have in the past. And that’s something to keep an eye on.
They need to do this while avoiding what I call the “two bucket problem.”
When you read “dirt” on Dem candidates remember:
Imagine there are two stables. One is overflowing with 50 tons of 💩 and the other has a single bucket-full of 💩.
As a reporter, you can get a full bucket from each one and give them equal coverage. You’ll seem “fair.”
First, you have a typo; “Democratic expectations of holding power accountable”. The capital ‘D’ makes it sound like you are talking about the Democratic Party, whose policy during the financial crisis was to help the banks steal peoples homes.
As both a Democrat and a democrat, the small ‘d’ makes more sense to me.
How do you give the same rhetorical weight to Harris’ horrible, horrible homeowner relief program, and the giant nothing done by most other States’ Attorneys General? There are no $1400-checks-for-a-house-stories where homeowners were simply ignored.
I screwed up; It has been a while since I read “Chain of Title” and I misremembered the program. It wasn’t Harris’ relief program, it was a national relief program. Harris demanded a monitor for for her state, and got it. The she appointed Katie Porter, a genuine public servant, to be that monitor.
Harris stood above the other state AGs in trying to make it better.