Thread by @drvolts

I come out somewhere between @Sulliview and @jeffjarvis on this one. A short 🧵.

Let's distinguish between two reasons Harris might need to speak specifically with the US political press corps.

The first reason is: to inform the public what she's about.

On that I'd say two things. First, political reporters hate hearing this, but the public doesn't actually care that much about policy specifics. They want vibes. If she wants to *win*, she'll stay focused on vibes.

But second, if the goal is genuinely to *inform* ...

... then an interview w/ an MSM political reporter is one of the *worst* ways to do it. They'll ask about personal dramas & court intrigue. They'll try to get her to say something that can be spun as controversial, to get clicks. Their primary goal is not to inform!

This is what all the pompous press types just refuse to acknowledge, but it's clear to everyone else: they are operating on a set of internal incentives, writing to one another, to an insular DC scene, not to the public. Giving them content serves only them, not "the public."

If the goal is genuinely to inform -- to provide substantive answers to substantive questions -- Harris/Walz would be better off going on Howard Stern, or any number of subject-matter-expert podcasts, or holding a public town hall. All those around-the-MSM routes ...

... reach more disengaged voters & convey more information. The political press really ought to reflect on that: talking to them often produces the *least* voter-relevant information, not the most. (And it's not just online press critics who think so.)

So, in that sense, sure: Harris needs to talk to *voters*. She needs to tell them what she's about. There are a bunch of ways to do this that don't involve saying "how high" when hopped-up nepo baby AG Sulzberger says "jump."

But there's another reason Harris might want/need to do the traditional MSM interview: the MSM is now run by petty, vindictive mediocrities who jealously guard their parochial incentives & punish politicians who don't cooperate. And they still have enough power ...

... to make good on those threats. They can damage a campaign if they want to ("but her emails" is the iconic case, but there are many). They can gang up & drag a politician down. They can set the tone & tenor of coverage, which seeps down through other outlets & social media.

So when they say "give us our special exclusive content or we will punish you," unfortunately, they have to be taken seriously. They are capable of doing it. It's gross & indefensible, but there it is. Harris does, on some level, need to keep them happy.

So, all things considered, she probably needs to suck it up & sit down with one of the bigs, just to keep their absurd egos in check. But I hope the political press is noticing how thin their support is, how little *public* push there is for them to step in.

They've served the public poorly enough for long enough that they are losing their hold. They're not as important or necessary as they used to be -- they don't have a large reserve of public good will to burn. They should probably think about how to reform & do better.

Final, crucial point: Harris an/or Walz should come on Volts! That's the real answer here. </fin>