Margaret Sullivan — whom I greatly respect and with whom I almost always agree — wrote a Guardian column asserting that “Kamala Harris must speak to the press.” Go read it first. 

I disagree. That resulted in a thread on the socials I duplicate (with mended typos) here:

What “press”? The broken and vindictive Times? The newly Murdochian Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch’s fascist media? No. She can choose many ways to communicate her stands with others outside the old press and with the public directly. The old press can and should be bypassed.

Look at the press’ behavior. When given a chance to ask questions, they sound like they’re in a lockerroom, seeking quotes, not policy. This does nothing to inform the electorate. I know the argument about testing a candidate. But the press as currently configured aims for game & gotcha.

Job 1 is to inform the electorate about policy and stakes. That is up to the candidate to communicate and voters to judge. The press is unnecessary in that process. It can still analyze all it wants. But its questions will do nothing more to inform.

If Harris preempts interviews with the hostile press — which includes not just Fox but now The Times and Post — and goes for an interview on MSNBC she’ll be accused of seeking softballs. (Not that Trump didn’t just get a BJ from Elon Musk…)

The next question is one of character. There we would learn more from seeing Harris and Walz sit down with Howard Stern (his interview with Biden was stellar and revealing) or late-night hosts (Colbert, not for God’s sake Fallon) or podcasters.

What I most want to see Harris & Walz do is bypass old, white mass media (run by people who look like me) and enter into conversations — scarce time allowing — with Black & Latino press, podcasters, community press, thereby validating their role over the priviledged & powerful incumbents in political discourse.

I’ll say this again: The press needs Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris doesn’t need the press. Their motive in whining for what they take as their birthright (hello, A.G.) is to salve their editorial egos and earn them attention (and money). They have not earned this role; they have forfeited the privilege by their behavior.

I agree with Margaret almost always. But here, not. It is time that we as media critics face head on how broken the press is. It does not perform a constructive and productive role. To the contrary, it has been damaging to democracy. Facing the press is not a proper test. The press fails its tests.

It is also critical that we as journalism educators enable our students to break free of the failures of incubment, white, mass media and build a different future for journalism, paying reparations for the sins of media past & present, listening — truly listening — to the public they serve.

As evidence of why I respect and admire Margaret so, this is her tweet in response to mine: