Harris should talk to journalists more. Particularly the wonky ones.

Harris is making a mistake. She should be doing interviews and other engagements with journalists, in recognition of their important role in democracy. In particular, she should speak to journalists who specialize in policy reporting.

There’s always been tension between politicians and journalists. Candidates want to stick to their scripted events and speeches; reporters want to ask questions that break news and get politicians off their talking points. But a few things have changed. The rise of social media and other alternative forms of communication isn’t a new trend, but every year politicians need journalists a bit less. The Post, New York Times, ABC News and other major news organizations still have large audiences, but Harris could put an interview of herself being asked questions by her husband, second gentleman Doug Emhoff, on Facebook and TikTok and have it watched by tens of millions of people.

Another shift is the decline of local news, particularly papers. Back in 2004, when I covered a presidential campaign for the first time, candidates in both parties felt getting positive coverage in local news outlets was vital. Now, many Americans get all of their political news from national outlets or social media.

There is also increased tension between Democrats and the media. It used to be largely Republicans who bashed the press. Now, X and Bluesky are full of liberals attacking major news outlets, particularly the New York Times. Friction between the Times and the Biden White House has been so high that Politico did a long, detailed article about it. Unlike his predecessors in both parties, the president hasn’t done a single formal interview with the Times, Post or Wall Street Journal.

Many liberals argue the news media gave excessive coverage in 2016 to Hillary Clinton’s use of a nongovernmental email server, helping Trump win and thereby creating the democracy crisis that America is still in the middle of. This year, many Democrats, including White House officials, felt prominent news outlets were overly fixated on Biden’s age. In the view of many on the left, the press has to cover Trump negatively because he is consistently lying and breaking with democratic norms. So, to seem balanced and nonpartisan, journalists exaggerate the foibles and weaknesses of Democratic politicians. (I mainly agree with this critique, while also believing that Biden’s age and ability to serve as president from 2025-2028 was a legitimate issue that the media perhaps undercovered before the June debate.)

Harris and her advisers might say they don’t need to talk to reporters to reach voters and honestly believe that journalists will use interviews and news conferences more to prove that they aren’t in the tank for her and other Democrats than to ask questions relevant to the American public.

Those two things are probably true. She still should talk to journalists more. A presidential campaign is a national conversation about the state of the country. The candidate giving the same speech over and over again is a monologue, not a conversation. Harris isn’t taking questions from voters at her events on the campaign trail or in other forums either.

At the risk of sounding elitist and overly-defensive of my profession, answering questions from journalists is particularly vital. They are paid to study policy issues and scrutinize politicians. Their questions will often — but not always — be more detailed and specific than those of voters.

Yes, many of the questions asked at the White House briefings and on the campaign trail aren’t particularly sharp. That’s because most news outlets have generalists or reporters who specialize in elections or politics on those beats. But those exchanges often do result in new revelations. And they are an important form of accountability. A politician knows if they lie, say something crazy or take an extreme position, they will be challenged by journalists.

Also, the media is not just campaign trail reporters. Harris could do an interview with journalists who specialize in foreign affairs, such as CNN’s Christiane Amanpour or Fareed Zakaria, who also writes a column for The Post; economic policy writers such as The Post’s Abha Bhattarai and Jeff Stein; immigration experts such as the Atlantic’s Caitlin Dickerson. Reporters at Chalkbeat (which specializes in education), Capital B (issues affecting specifically Black Americans), Bolts (democracy at the local and state level) and the Marshall Project (criminal justice) would almost certainly not ask Harris about whatever Trump said that day if she sat down with them.

Reporters from the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are likely to home in on their cities, states and regions. And even though local papers don’t have the reach in their communities that they used to, people across the country would go on those papers’ websites to read an interview with Harris.

Talking to reporters who know their subjects well creates some risk for a candidate. But Harris’s strong start over the past few weeks suggests she has been underestimated by Democratic Party elites. I hope her aides (many of whom are from that elite) aren’t overly worried about the candidate making a mistake because she is speaking extemporaneously.

Some on the left argue that essentially any tactic by Harris’s campaign is justified because of the importance of beating Trump. But “to save democracy, presidential candidates should not take questions from journalists” is a preposterous position. Not talking to journalists or taking questions from virtually anyone for weeks further erodes democracy.

I assume the Harris campaign will respond to the increasing criticism of its media approach by doing one major interview with a TV network and then largely sticking to conversations with radio hosts who don’t cover policy daily and news organizations such as MSNBC that are very favorable to Democrats. (That was largely Biden’s approach.)

But I would like to be proven wrong. I know lots of people in top jobs in Democratic politics. They often get their news from major outlets such as CNN, The Post and the Times. (They do watch a lot of MSNBC.) I don’t think Biden’s and Harris aides’ opposition to their bosses doing more interviews with such outlets is a principled objection to their coverage, but instead a self-interested, democracy-weakening preference for not taking tough questions from the most seasoned journalists. They should rethink that view.

That Trump loses this election is important. But how he loses matters. The Democratic Party’s first strategy for the 2024 election was to try to force voters into an unwanted choice between Biden or Trump, with the president ducking interviews and news conferences along the way. Their second approach, at least so far, is to select a new candidate with no primaries and then shield her from taking questions from voters or reporters.

I’ve spent much of the past nine years saying that I am against Trump because he constantly breaks with core democratic norms and values. Those aren’t just partisan talking points. So I’m frustrated that the main anti-Trump candidate has started her candidacy by breaking with the democratic values of treating the press as an important institution and answering questions from reporters and the public.

I’ve known Kamala Harris since she was first elected to the Senate. I’ve been in a few off-the-record conversations with her and other journalists. She’s very good at answering detailed policy questions. I wish she would start doing that on the campaign trail.