Rile Up...Trip Up...Tear Up

Anger, confuse, cry: CNN flawlessly executes the tired modern media playbook, but Harris and Walz didn't bite

Modern corporate media has become as empty as these CNN studio chairs

After 38 days…maybe 39—I don’t know—I’ve lost count…something just under 40 days after Kamala Harris became the de facto Democratic presidential candidate, we finally got what the country—nay, the world—was waiting for: her sit down interview with anyone from the “press”.

The “press” being presumptively a corporate media conglomerate employee. They chose to give the honors to Dana Bash from CNN, who did what media conglomerate employees do these days: self-aggrandize as they ask inane questions.

There’s a playbook for this, and pretty much every legacy media interviewer follows it when questioning a political subject.

First, it starts with the dramatic Day One question, as though actions that will change the trajectory of society can be accomplished on the first day in office.

From the CNN interview transcript, here’s Dana Bash’s first question.

If you are elected, what would you do on day one in the White House?

Indulge me while I offer what the honest answer would be:

“Geeze. Well, let’s see. I wouldn’t even get inaugurated until noon, so that’s half the day gone right there. And even then, the ceremony and speech would probably last a couple hours, and then you have the aftermath, where I greet everyone in D.C. politics as they leave the event. Gosh that whole thing would probably end up going roughly 3, maybe even up to 4 hours. So then I supposed the first thing I might do after that is sign a document or two at the Resolute Desk that my staff prepares for me to make it look like I’m accomplishing a major task, to show I kept my promises, for political purposes, you know. Then it’s dinnertime already, plus socializing and partying to celebrate, and then a not-too-late bedtime so I can do what I’m really looking forward too: sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom. OMG, that is going to be sooo cool!”

This would be more interesting by far than most of the things that presidential candidates say, except maybe Trump’s promise to be a dictator on Day 1. Yes, come to think of it, that one’s a bit more interesting.

Anyway, Kamala Harris answered this question just as a presidential candidate needs to answer the question, which is to say she didn’t give the Trump answer or the honest answer I just laid out above. She performed the way she needed to, delicately balancing general values with specific policy details.

This is when the meat of the media playbook kicks in. And Dana Bash did not waver from its guidelines.

Rile Up

The first thing you want to do as a legacy corporate media company interviewer is try to rile up the subject. Make them angry or defensive enough to produce an off-putting sound bite you can use to concoct a story.

To do this, Bash asked the following questions, with my commentary included:

I wonder what you say to voters who do want to go back when it comes to the economy specifically because their groceries were less expensive, housing was more affordable when Donald Trump was president.

So you have been vice president for three and a half years. The steps that you’re talking about now, why haven’t you done them already?

So you maintain Bidenomics is a success.

Here, Bash does a few things to attempt to rile up Harris. The framing of this question suggests that the economy was much better under Trump, which is very arguable and ignores the economic calamity that Biden/Harris inherited from Trump, and guided the country out of. And then the implication that “she” had 3 and a half years to dictate policy in the first place, which is absurd.

And then at the end, the obligatory sound-bite mining. You can tell that CNN really wanted the headline “Harris maintains Bidenomics is a success”.

During the Biden-Harris administration, there were record numbers of illegal border crossings. Why did the Biden-Harris administration wait three and a half years to implement sweeping asylum restrictions?

Again, it’s a legitimate concept for a question, but the framing of “wait[ing] three and a half years]” implies that they did something bad by sitting on a solution for a few years.

I want to ask you about your opponent, Donald Trump. I want to ask you about is what he said last month. He suggested that you happened to turn Black recently for political purposes, questioning a core part of your identity.

I shouldn’t even have to comment on this. It’s pure goading.

And then moving on to riling up Walz:

Governor Walz…I want to ask you a question about how you’ve described your service in the National Guard. You said that you carried weapons in war, but you have never deployed actually in a war zone. A campaign official said that you misspoke. Did you?

You had to clarify that you had said that you and your wife used IVF, but it turned out you used a different kind of fertility in order to have children. And then when you ran for Congress in 2006, your campaign repeatedly made false statements about a 1995 arrest for drunk and reckless driving. What do you say to voters who aren’t sure whether they can take you at your word?

And that was the most interaction that Bash had with Walz, one of the most accomplished individuals in our country. You couldn’t think of anything else to ask him that doesn’t imply that he’s a blatant fraud? Nothing other than Republican attack lines?

Trip Up

The next technique is done in order to trip up the subject, to cause confusion or inconsistencies. This is otherwise known as “gotcha journalism”. Some of this can be useful, but in the modern era it’s way overdone, and it largely makes the media come off like desperate hounds (which they basically are).

I want to get some clarity on where you stand on some key policy issues. Energy is a big one. In — when you were in Congress, you supported the Green New Deal. And in 2019 you said, quote, “There is no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Fracking, as you know, is a pretty big issue, particularly in your must-win state of Pennsylvania. Do you still want to ban fracking?

In 2019, I believe in a town hall you said — you were asked, “Would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on your first day in office?” and you said, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking. So yes.” So it changed in — in that campaign?

Harris was actually one step ahead of Bash on this one, and answered unequivocally after the first question that she “…made that clear on the debate stage in 2020, that I would not ban fracking. As vice president, I did not ban fracking. As president, I will not ban fracking”. Hence, the citation of the 2019 quote by Bash, which was rendered irrelevant after Harris’ initial answer, which also included the last three and a half years of not banning fracking (which she couldn’t have done as VP anyway).

What made you change that position at the time?

And was there some policy or scientific data that you saw that you said, “Oh, okay. I get it now”?

Can you see what’s happening? CNN and Bash really wanted to get something juicy on fracking. Probably because fracking is big in Pennsylvania, which is considered to be the biggest “tipping point” state on the electoral map—the “must-win” state, as Bash puts it. This would create a more robustly concerning headline than, say, “Harris Favors Some Minor Safety Restrictions on Maryland’s Crab Processing Industry”.

Vice President Harris, you were a very staunch defender of President Biden’s capacity to serve another four years right after the debate. You insisted that President Biden is extraordinarily strong. Given where we are now, do you have any regrets about what you told the American people?

What’s the implication here with this framing? That Biden obviously is not “strong”, so therefore she must have been wrong or misleading, and therefore must harbor regrets.

One other question about something that you said in 2019 when you first ran. There was a debate. You raised your hand when asked whether or not the border should be decriminalized. Do you still believe that?

Generally speaking, how should voters look at some of the changes that you’ve made — that you explained some of here — in your policy? Is it because you have more experience now and you’ve learned more about the information? Is it because you’re running for president in a Democratic primary? And should they feel comfortable and confident that what you’re saying now is gonna be your policy moving forward?

Gotcha, Kamala!

These questions are all to paint Harris as a “flip-flopper”, someone that changes their views indiscriminately. But evolving views in general are normal. Notice that there’s quotes regarding only two issues—fracking and decriminalizing the border—both from 2019, from which she’s had 5 years as Senator and VP for her politics and views to evolve. Yet Bash implies that recklessly changing policy or tone is some kind of inherent trait of hers, that these are massive sudden changes that she needs to answer for, and that the American people should be skeptical of her.

Tear Up

And of course, after harassing them with mostly right-wing attacks, talking points, and framing, Bash suddenly becomes their warm, trusted pal and confidant. She comes through with perhaps the most important item of the media playbook: the obligatory cry incitement. Although this usually applies to Democrats, because they tend to have close human relationships, and are capable of crying.

I just have to ask you both about two standout moments, aside of course from the addresses that you both gave, but standout moments that were perhaps unexpected during the convention. You mentioned one of them, governor, a moment that you shared, that the world shared with your son, Gus. You were speaking. The camera caught him so incredibly proud of you, so emotional, saying, “That’s my dad.”

Walz answered this as a loving Dad would, and you could see the sincerity on his face. But he did not cry.

And last question, Madam Vice President, the photograph that has gone viral. You were speaking. One of your grand nieces that you were just talking about was watching you accept the nomination. You didn’t explicitly talk about gender or race in your speech. But it obviously means a lot to a lot of people. And that viral picture really says it. What does it mean to you?

Like Walz, Harris displayed genuine emotion, but did not cry.

CNN was probably disappointed in the lack of tears, but this is the Holy Grail of media interviews and is rare to achieve.

It’s a Wrap

This isn’t to say that CNN and Bash were mistreating Harris or Walz, although an argument could be made that a few of the questions were over the line.

This is just what the media is these days. One can predict the tone and direction of almost all media interviews, because they tend to follow this playbook.

They want attention and clicks and eyeballs on their product, and it’s well known that to get attention these days, you need drama. This playbook maximizes the chance for drama.

This is why Harris was in no hurry to talk to the media, and why Biden was in no hurry before her. The amount of demand by pundits for these interactions far outpaces the actual value they offer.

Did any viewer learn anything new from this interview? Not really. Maybe a few details about Biden’s decision to step down (I left out these questions for efficiency’s sake) and his phone call to Harris to notify her of the decision. Other than that, there was nothing very notable.

One can learn much more about her proposed policies by watching her speeches than from the few questions on actual policy she got in this interview. She covers all of that there. The interview was mostly just warding off partisan attacks in a more relaxed setting. It wasn’t very useful to the average voter.

She and Walz handled all of this in the appropriate way in which they needed to. They passed the test.

Which begs the question: since there is a “needed” and “appropriate” way to answer these questions, what is the point of the questions in the first place? To make sure that the interviewees can follow these rules?

In this way, media interviews have become a pointless circular affair. They’ve ceased to inform. They are just the latest attempt to further inject reality show tactics into the political and cultural mainstream.

And voters are worse off for it.