NYT Rips Kamala, MSNBC Interviewer For Softball Sit-Down: ‘Hard-Hitting Interview Still Yet To Come’

The New York Times took aim at Vice President Kamala Harris and MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle following a 25-minute interview broadcast on Wednesday night, calling the discussion a missed opportunity for a more challenging and substantive dialogue. The interview, Harris’s first one-on-one cable TV appearance since becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, has drawn criticism for its lack of hard-hitting questions.

In the interview, Harris touched on familiar themes from her recent pro-business economic speech, presenting herself as a middle-class advocate. However, according to the NYT, she repeatedly sidestepped direct questions about her plans and the challenges she faces. The lack of depth has become a recurring theme in her recent interviews, leaving observers questioning when a more pressing and meaningful conversation will take place.

The NYT piece noted that Ruhle’s questions, which could have led to a more rigorous discussion, were often met with roundabout answers from Harris. When asked why former President Donald Trump continues to poll better on the economy despite extremely marginal post-pandemic improvements under the Biden administration, Harris diverted attention from the question. Instead of addressing why voters might favor Trump’s economic policies, Harris criticized his record, claiming a loss of manufacturing jobs, which has been fact-checked as false, and the impact of tariffs on American consumers. As the NYT pointed out, she failed to offer any real explanation as to why her administration might be better suited to handle economic concerns.

The New York Times absolutely evicerated Kamala’s interview on MSNBC last night pic.twitter.com/2xaolETTbq

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 26, 2024

“If you are hardworking, if you have the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations of what I believe you do, you’re in my plan,” Harris responded, in an attempt to reassure voters. But the NYT wasn’t convinced, describing her answer as lacking clarity and avoiding key questions. The publication emphasized that this was not the kind of critical interview voters needed in order to fully understand how Harris would govern if elected president.

WATCH:

One key moment in the interview focused on the potential of Democrats losing control of the Senate, a scenario that would severely limit the ability of a Harris administration to pass major legislative proposals. When Ruhle raised this issue, Harris again dodged, offering little insight into how she would manage such a setback.

“We’re going to have to raise corporate taxes,” Harris said, before going on to argue that everyone should pay their fair share. But she did not address the more pressing question of how Democrats, with potentially limited Senate control, would pass her agenda. The NYT noted that this kind of noncommittal response has been a hallmark of Harris’s recent media appearances.

The New York Times wrote:

Since Ms. Harris began granting more interviews in recent days, her media strategy has been to sit with friendly inquisitors who are not inclined to ask terribly thorny questions or press her when her responses are evasive.

Nothing about that changed during her interview with Ms. Ruhle before her audience on MSNBC, the liberal cable channel whose viewers overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates.

It’s not quite clear what Ms. Harris gained, aside from giving her campaign aides the ability to say she held a one-on-one cable television interview.

For the vice president, speaking with Ms. Ruhle was roughly in the same ballpark as Mr. Trump having one of his regular chats with Sean Hannity of Fox News.

For Harris, this kind of interview provides a platform to highlight her key messages, but as the NYT suggests, a more critical, hard-hitting interview is still missing from the equation. At a time when the Democratic candidate needs to solidify her policies and connect with a skeptical electorate, many believe that Harris must face more pointed questions. So far, interviews like this one seem more focused on presentation than substance, leaving voters with little clarity about what to expect from a Harris administration.

(VOTE: Are You Supporting TRUMP Or KAMALA In November?)