Harris is just the latest internet-era politician to stonewall the press

Plenty has been said about Vice President Kamala Harris’ media availability, or lack thereof, during her presidential campaign so far. She hasn’t given interviews yet and hasn’t answered questions from the press nearly as often as past candidates for the nation’s highest office.

The criticism continued at the Democratic National Convention, where some observed that organizers seemed to be pricing out journalists, prioritizing social media influencers over reporters, and otherwise treating the press as an unwelcome nuisance.

We agree that anyone auditioning to be the world’s most powerful person should demonstrate to the public that they can handle tough questions. But here’s the thing: Harris is far from the first internet-era politician to avoid journalists.

Political campaigns don’t make these kinds of decisions with press freedom principles in mind — they’re only concerned with winning. Until they think avoiding journalists will harm them politically, they’re not going to change course.

Harris’ approach shows that politicians currently aren’t concerned with political fallout from shutting out reporters. They instead believe that new ways to communicate mean they no longer need journalists to reach the electorate. Many decide that the hit they’ll take for avoiding the press is a small price to pay to deliver their message in ways they can better control.

Journalists need to change that equation by loudly calling out all politicians who attempt to duck scrutiny — not just presidential candidates. It seems to be working, to some extent, with Harris. She has committed to begin sitting for interviews. It can also work at the local level.

Governors, local officials stonewall press

I joined the Poynter Institute for a symposium in Miami in 2023 focusing on the growing trend of public officials “bypassing independent reporting.”

At the time, the presidential candidate refusing to play ball with the media was Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Florida journalists described how he’d replaced news conferences in the state’s Capitol with rallies packed with supporters in locations far away from the Tallahassee press corps. Our U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented several instances of DeSantis not just avoiding the press but removing or barring journalists from his events.

DeSantis, unfortunately, is proudly anti-press. Journalists should still call him out so his constituents know about his antics, but he probably enjoys seeing the tears of his victims.

But other governors more likely to value a good relationship with the press, including California’s Gavin Newsom, have also stonewalled reporters. David Loy, legal director of the California-based First Amendment Coalition, told CalMatters that officials’ “message control practices do real harm to the public interest. … Because the people need to know the full story, not just the official story.”

It’s not just governors. Poynter’s report on the symposium cited examples involving lower-level public officials, like a sheriff in Florida refusing to alert the local paper to news conferences. It also noted that many government agencies made permanent cutbacks on transparency during the COVID-19 pandemic that were, ostensibly, temporary public safety measures.

Just this week, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported on local police denying independent journalists access and information available to legacy media outlets, effectively shrinking the pool of reporters with the ability to fully scrutinize them. And the Society of Professional Journalists condemned the Oklahoma State Department of Education’s denial of access to news conferences after the agency admitted it was retaliating for an outlet’s coverage.

Only journalists can hold officials accountable

“The result of these and similar practices is to replace journalistic scrutiny with stagecraft,” Poynter’s report rightly noted. And that’s not to mention the similarly widespread practice of routing information requests through spin-spewing public information officers rather than people with firsthand knowledge of the issues.

The report is worth reading in full – several intrepid local journalists describe reporting techniques they employ to get around public officials’ avoidance and find the news through other means. But in a case like the Harris campaign, there’s really no viable substitute for getting the candidate to speak off the cuff and on the record.

In instances like those, the report suggested that,

Journalists should make an effort to explain to the audience not only that the source is unwilling to participate, but also the context and ramifications of that decision. That shows the reporter is holding the newsmaker accountable and explaining that by withholding information from the journalist, they are also shutting out the public.

Although we absolutely encourage newspapers to editorialize about transparency and other press freedom issues, those editorials are not necessarily read by the same people who read the reporting that was impacted. Journalists concerned that they’ll be accused of whining or navel-gazing should make clear to the audience how official stonewalling impacts the quality of the news they ultimately consume — not just theoretically, but with specific examples.

Journalists should also make the connection when the same politicians who shut them out accuse them of bias. “Make clear in the story that you would’ve liked to attend the event yourself or speak to the official or their staff but you weren’t allowed to do so. If they believe the coverage is biased, they have themselves to blame,” I told Poynter.

As the saying goes, all politics is local. If journalists allow politicians in their communities to get away with avoiding the press, it’s not surprising if the practice spreads to the presidential level.