Staff Reports
It appears that Stephanie Ruhle’s affection for Kamala Harris has paid off in spades, highlighting just how far the mainstream media will go to shield politicians from scrutiny. Recent comments made by Ruhle on Bill Maher’s show revealed her belief that Harris shouldn’t be held accountable for answering tough questions because, in her view, the 2024 election isn’t about her; it’s a binary choice between Harris and Donald Trump. According to Ruhle, asking for substantive dialogue is akin to wanting “Nirvana,” showcasing the lengths to which some in the media will go to defend the vice president from critical examination.
In Ruhle’s defense of Harris, she argued that if viewers are displeased with the vice president’s responses, their only option is to vote for Trump. This oversimplification downplays the importance of candidate clarity and accountability. Harris might not be running for “perfect,” but expecting her to articulate her positions isn’t asking too much. The voters deserve to know what they’re getting before making a decision in the voting booth, yet Ruhle conveniently neglects this essential responsibility of a public servant.
Stephanie Ruhle goes on Bill Mahar and lick spittles Kamala Harris saying it doesn't matter that she doesn't answer questions or what she believes. Peter Baker calls her "the great" for landing a pretaped interview because of it. https://t.co/LCqF3ioY1w
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) September 25, 2024
The irony lies in the fact that while Ruhle seems to think she’s serving up some savvy political analysis, she’s practically waving a red flag that signals partisan bias. By suggesting that anyone expecting tough questions from Harris is out of touch, Ruhle reveals herself as just another mouthpiece for the Democratic agenda. Perhaps unsurprisingly, her fawning approach caught the attention of the Harris campaign, which quickly seized the opportunity to schedule an interview. It begs the question: is this what journalism has been reduced to? A quid pro quo between sycophantic praise and access to those in power?
The disturbing reality is that the incentives in today’s media landscape are fundamentally flawed. Softball questions and blind loyalty to the Democratic narrative are rewarded, while any hint of critical inquiry toward a Republican candidate is met with career elevation. This environment fosters a media culture that prioritizes partisanship over genuine journalism. Looking back at how figures like Linsey Davis have been praised for their biased approaches during debates only solidifies this point. Instead of challenging politicians, these so-called journalists seem more interested in maintaining their access and position.
What’s more telling about the Harris campaign is its apparent reluctance to allow the vice president to engage in tough interviews. Far too often, the details of her policies are filtered through unnamed aides rather than coming directly from Harris herself, leaving voters in the dark about the administration’s actual intentions and beliefs. This unwillingness to face tough questions raises red flags about the authenticity of her campaign. If Harris and her team think they can navigate the election landscape without addressing voters’ concerns directly, they are sorely mistaken. The American public deserves better than the manufactured façade that this campaign presents.
