By Bond Robertson 
After several years of journalistic frenzy From Trump, it was the left's turn to attack the same press. Throughout the campaign, the leading newspaper The New York Times has been widely criticized by liberal voters, who believe the newspaper, in common with many other media outlets, is fraudulent in its coverage of the candidates. This bias is evident when Trump repeatedly gets away with crazy lies and outlandish claims, while Kamala Harris's smallest mistake is magnified.
False balance has been a persistent problem throughout the Trump era, and critics are right when they think the press's frightening balance is due to Trump's eternal complaining that the liberal press actually works. However, as the election campaign came to a close, the attacks turned into pure conspiracy theories about landlords who are in Trump's pocket, and journalists who only care about clicks and therefore want the Trump circus to continue.
It doesn't even help that the same leading newspapers are supporting Harris and condemning Trump as a threat to democracy. Or that the same newspapers won multiple Pulitzer Prizes for exposing Trump, especially regarding the attack on Congress.
Doesn't look good
Therefore, it is not surprising That blue voters, meaning Democrats, cheer for Kamala Harris when she bypasses the editor-controlled press and seeks refuge on podcasts and talk shows. Barack Obama did the same thing. He rarely took questions from the press in the White House, and was the first president to seriously embrace social media as a strategy to bypass the press.
But in this election campaign, the press has remained almost on the sidelines. There were no fewer discussions, critical interviews and press conferences. Donald Trump even canceled the traditional “60 Minutes” interview because he didn't want to be validated. Then it's easier at Fox News, where reporters humbly point out pure lies and slander.
However, it is Kamala Harris Who receives the most criticism for hiding from the press. Last week, social media was bombarded with Harris. Not because of the 60 Minutes interview, but because she has appeared on a number of popular TV shows and podcasts. See, Kamala loves the prince. Listen, Kamala is talking about abortion. That's how she met Doug.
In a whirlwind of interviews in just a few days, she reached tens of millions of viewers and listeners live, and even millions more via videos that went viral and live long after the interview was conducted. If she had stood for the old aunt in New York, it would have reached a small percentage, and the angle might have been critical or at best directed at voters who were already following the campaign closely. Instead, it reached out to new voters who may not be interested in politics, or who had decided to vote once. The gain is clear.
She was in “Call Daddy.” It is the second most popular podcast in the world, which revolves around the lives and sexuality of young women. She was on a popular gym podcast with three sets of muscles and began speaking passionately about her relationship with her stepchildren and as a result Kamala received criticism from Republicans for being childless. She was on “The View,” a liberal feminist show hosted by Whoppi Goldberg, which is so popular that the right-wing media is plotting a conservative competitor, realizing too late that they have a serious women's problem. She was with talk show king Stephen Colbert drinking beer. It was with Howard Stern, who was a controversial guy who made fun of Donald Trump, but now he does sweet interviews with Bruce Springsteen, has ten million followers and loves Kamala.
In all these programs I watched, she was talking about politics. It's not politics in the way you use journalism to talk about politics. It is not Dagsnit Aten, nor Sigrid Sollund, who formally intervenes in the deluge of talk, corrects the facts and demands an answer when there is none.
Florida has been struck by: – a monster
Type of critical journalism It became so unusual that when Kamala Harris appeared in a live interview on 60 Minutes, her followers exploded. The interview was not more than any presidential candidate should be able to handle. But on social media it was described as an ambush and made clear that CBS is owned by people who support Trump. Few responded that Kamala Harris cannot explain her border policy, nor how she will finance her promises, two central questions that voters deserve to answer.
They also didn't get those answers from Oprah or Howard Stern. There they get a charming and youthful candidate who talks about food, music and family life, laughs and fools the benevolent broadcasters. To the extent that policy is discussed, it easily evades purely electoral rhetoric and non-binding promises.
At the same time, I totally want it Do not discount the value of these conversations. In form and content, it reaches voters who do not follow politics on a daily basis. For the first time, time restrictions, parental leave, and elder care are on the agenda in a US election. The talks constitute a recent addition that expands the political arena and includes more.
But in an election in which Harris claims democracy is at stake, she should emphasize the value of a free and independent press. After all, she's running for president, not as the TikTok queen. She won this title easily.