Kamala Harris recently graced Bret Baier with her presence during a much-anticipated interview on Fox News, and viewers were treated to what can only be described as a spectacular train wreck. From the first moment, it was clear that she had come armed with a pre-rehearsed arsenal of talking points, but instead of actually participating in a dialogue, she seemed determined to talk her way through the clock. The mission was simple: filibuster the interview to leave Baier grappling for time and, of course, crucial questions.
Throughout the interview, Harris exhibited an impressive ability to talk over Baier, which suggested not only an anxiety about losing her train of thought but also an apparent fear of having her own narrative challenged. Observers noted that she practically shouted her predetermined responses, creating an atmosphere more reminiscent of a public tantrum than a serious political discussion.
Liberal Media Caught Astroturfing Reaction to Harris’ Fox News Interviewhttps://t.co/8P4x6li5bU
— PJ Media (@PJMedia_com) October 17, 2024
What followed this chaotic display? Expecting the mainstream media to acknowledge her performance might have been a stretch, but it seemed worth a shot. The conventional wisdom was that a disaster of this magnitude would be recognized, if not highlighted, by the very outlets that usually dance to the beat of the Democrats’ drum. But as it turns out, the liberal media knows how to spin a yarn.
General Mike Flynn, with a crystal ball for media behavior, predicted that Harris would emerge from this train wreck lauded as a fierce fighter effortlessly parrying Baier’s supposed attempts at aggression. And how right he was. Coverage across various outlets characterized Harris’s performance with bizarrely similar adjectives, branding her as “fiery” and conjuring up images of a political gladiator battling the “right-wing attack dog” that is Fox News.
The keyword parade didn’t end there. NBC portrayed her as engaging in a “spar” with Baier, while Bloomberg insisted she was making bold promises to differentiate herself from Biden. The same tired narrative echoed through multiple platforms, including the Hollywood Reporter and NPR, peppering their reporting with descriptions like “testy” and “fiery” to create a false narrative of a command performance. It seemingly didn’t matter that there was nothing particularly “fiery” about her inability to answer tough questions.
This repetition across the media landscape begs the question: could the liberal media’s reliance on cookie-cutter phrases and pre-packaged narratives be any more transparent? When the drumbeat of descriptors sounds like a well-rehearsed campaign rally, it’s tough not to wonder if anyone behind those desks actually engaged with the material. If these outlets want to masquerade as journalistic institutions, they might want to put a bit of effort into their reporting – at least enough to avoid sounding like a chorus of parrots regurgitating the same notes.
In a world where creativity in political coverage seems increasingly elusive, Harris’s Fox News interview served as a not-so-gentle reminder of how entrenched and predictable mainstream media can be. Perhaps there’s an unwritten manual for liberal journalists, guiding them to spin a simple interview into a grand narrative of political heroism. But most might have to wonder who benefited more from the spectacle: Harris for avoiding tough questions, or the media for keeping up their charade.