<
https://theconversation.com/twice-as-good-for-half-the-respect-kamala-harris-battle-for-the-white-house-235419>
"Mainstream media are surprisingly muted at the prospect of the world’s most
powerful nation being led for the first time by a woman – specifically a woman
of colour, Vice President Kamala Harris. Using past elections as our guide, we
could have expected an outpouring of commentary on this potentially historic
moment. Why haven’t we seen this?
We could point to the gravity of the election, as Trump and the Republicans
ramp up their ethnonationalist rhetoric. We could also point to a continuing
desire in media circles for disunity in the Democratic Party; the chances of
which have been stymied by Biden’s late withdrawal from the nomination process
followed by a swift endorsement of Harris.
But the best and most simple explanation is simply that the legacy media have
not –at least for the first few days of her campaign – taken Harris’s candidacy
seriously enough. The reason is that they have not taken Harris herself
seriously enough.
Narratives about Harris’ 2019 campaign for the nomination to lead the
Democratic Party ticket said it was “unclear what she stood for”. We have heard
that judgment repeated in recent days, including in liberal media op-eds and
podcasts.
Critics deplore her vice-presidency as another period in which Harris has
failed to put her stamp on any particular issue. And yet, at the same time,
they note how strong she is on abortion.
And there’s the rub. The issue on which Harris is electoral gold – a person’s
right to decide on medical procedures pertaining to reproduction or gender
presentation —is not one the legacy media regard as genuinely important. Too
many regard the issue as a minority interest rather than a universal one.
Instead, we are getting endless think pieces on how Harris is not qualified
enough for the role, as if 30-odd years in public service, including two terms
as district attorney in California and two as state attorney-general, four
years as a US senator and four years as vice-president, is insufficient. (And
as if her opponent’s credentials are not more worthy of scrutiny.)
On the
New York Times’ Daily podcast, the host and a polling expert fretted
that Harris doesn’t have enough campaign experience on the grounds that many of
her elections were in relatively liberal electorates. Did they not see her
eviscerate Mike Pence in the 2020 VP debate?
The intense focus on who Harris’ running mate will be also betrays the lack of
seriousness with which many in the media have treated the woman who has raised
a record-breaking tens of millions of campaign financing dollars this week."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
