No matter how much Donald Trump fails to meet even the most rudimentary standards for a presidential candidate, it is essential that journalists thoroughly investigate Kamala Harris.
The key, however, is to keep things in proportion and not make the same mistake the media made in 2016, obsessing over a minor Hillary Clinton scandal at the expense of focusing on Trump’s chronic perfidy. I have two suggestions for doing so.
But first, let’s be clear: Like it or not, journalists covering the newly transformed presidential race have an obligation to meticulously explore Harris’s views and expose her errors and flaws.
That’s because no presidential candidate should be able to avoid media scrutiny, no matter how much of a danger his or her opponent poses to democracy and freedom. No candidate should be immune from criticism. No candidate should be able to take office without the public knowing exactly what he or she cares about, who he or she listens to, and who he or she would empower.
Journalists need to investigate Harris to learn more about how she would govern and to begin the process of holding her accountable if she wins.
But how do journalists do that – and unearth the inevitable controversies and contradictions – without falsely equating their flaws with those of Donald Trump?
One way to do this is to produce at least as many articles about Trump’s mistakes. That shouldn’t be difficult, since those mistakes are incredibly numerous and many of them seem to have been forgotten by the general public.
But I also have another idea: In every article describing a debatable failure or shortcoming of Harris’s, journalists should devote at least a few paragraphs to applying the same standard to Trump.
This approach has a twofold benefit. It would force journalists to explain in simple terms what conduct of Harris’s they believe does not meet established standards, rather than publishing “cheats” out of context or simply stringing together a bunch of unpleasant quotes. And then it would force them to analyze how Trump’s conduct compares to Trump’s.
For example, if they write about how Harris has failed as a manager, then they should take into account Trump’s long history of disastrous management, starting with his response to Covid and extending to his hiring of corrupt, incompetent and immoral people and the fact that a surprising number of his former aides have announced that they do not support him.
If they are writing about Harris’s failure to sufficiently prosecute corrupt banks as attorney general, then they should spend some time describing Trump’s relationship with finance — for example, his debt to banks that have lent him money and his reversal as president of critical regulations that had been put in place to protect taxpayers in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
If journalists write about how Harris is failing to meet Democratic expectations for holding corporate power accountable, it is essential that they also remind the public that Trump would allow corporations to trample regulations and enable a kleptocracy.
If you write about Harris’s mixed record on her mission to curb immigration, you should also take note of Trump’s views and proposed solutions, which are racist, bellicose and wildly impractical.
And if you write about Harris’s pro-Israel stance on Gaza or her statements against anti-Israel protests (both highly controversial, especially among progressives), you should put them in the context of Trump’s incredibly harsh views on Israel and his desire to crush the protests.
Harris may have flaws. No, Harris certainly does. is He has flaws, and journalists should make that abundantly clear. But the magnitude of his flaws is trivial compared to Trump’s, and journalists should make that abundantly clear, too.
Investigations are surely already in the works, they are coming, and when they do come, readers and viewers should not jump to conclusions about the motives of these journalists. They are not “supporting” Trump, they are doing their job.
But there are ways for them to do their jobs more responsibly than in the past, and that’s something to keep in mind.
