Staff Reports
Politically speaking, the spectacle surrounding Vice President Kamala Harris and her refusal to hold press conferences is enough to make any sensible American scratch their head. A recent tangle on Fox News saw host Harris Faulkner and Democratic strategist Richard Fowler dive into this ongoing drama, sparking debate and confusion over Harris’s silence versus her newfound love for debates.
Fowler brought an interesting argument to the table. He posited that Americans would fare better hearing from the vice president during a debate rather than from an actual press conference. It’s a curious stance, especially since one would think that a press conference, where journalists ask questions, would yield some answers. But instead, this particular vice president seems to prefer the controlled environment of a debate where she can evade questions just as deftly as she avoids the press.
'We're Talking About Polling': Harris Faulkner Cuts Dem Guest Off At The Pass As He Tries To Change Subject @DailyCaller https://t.co/SSFO5Kxpke
— Harold Hutchison (@HaroldHutchison) September 23, 2024
Faulkner wasn’t having it. She raised an eyebrow at Fowler’s claim about another debate being a good opportunity for Harris. During the last debate, which was hosted by another biased network, it was effectively a stage for interruptions and half-truths, rather than a genuine showdown of ideas. Faulkner pointedly suggested that if a debate were to happen, it might be a good idea to host it on Fox, which presumably would ensure a modicum of fairness in question-asking—a concept that seems lost on many modern news outlets.
Interruptions seem to be the spice of debates these days, especially when the likes of Donald Trump are present. The memory of the last debate with Trump where ABC News anchors were practically vying for the title of ‘Most Interruptive’ looms large. Faulkner reminded Fowler of the necessity for fairness, and it soon became clear that the vice president’s lack of press conferences leaves many yearning for a more open dialogue. However, the idea of fairness in questioning has been thrown out the window recently, as evident from the media circus that often favors their narrative over the truth.
Fowler doubled down, claiming that a debate offers a rare opportunity for direct confrontation on significant issues. Sure, if one can sidestep the awkward pauses and the need to actually answer questions. Faulkner was right to point out that without some measure of fairness among questioners, any exchange, debate or otherwise, could easily spiral into chaos. She recalled witnessing first-hand how biases were served up on a silver platter during the National Association of Black Journalists event, showcasing a media landscape that is anything but impartial.
It’s almost comical how Kamala Harris continues to evade the press like a kid dodging a math homework assignment. She appears to relish the debate stage as a safer haven, where she can carefully navigate pre-planned questions and avoid the tough inquiries that prefer a press conference. Until she truly faces the music in a press conference or a fair debate, the questions looming over her administration’s transparency and accountability will only continue to grow louder.
