Everyone knew that Vice President Kamala Harris was stepping into unfriendly territory when she agreed to an interview on Fox News earlier this week. But many, including me, thought it was the right thing to do, especially because I assumed the interviewer, Bret Baier, would handle the interview with professionalism and journalistic integrity.
Turns out, Harris not only was walking into unfriendly territory, it was downright hostile. Baier badgered Harris with Republican talking points, asked her tough questions (which was fair), and asked her some unreasonable questions (which was unfair).
But worst of all, Baier constantly interrupted Harris, cutting her off and often talking over her. Several times, he put out his hand, almost as a stop sign to signal that she needed to stop, even though Harris was answering.
That was the immediate reaction following Wednesday night’s interview that various media outlets described as “tense,” “confrontational,” “contentious” and “combative.”
The New York Times’ Michael M. Grynbaum wrote after the interview, “Vice President Kamala Harris may not get another debate with former President Donald J. Trump, but on Wednesday, she got one with Bret Baier.”
Grynbaum added, “Mr. Baier’s aggressive demeanor was consistent with the kind of tough coverage of Ms. Harris that blankets Fox News’s daily programming.”
So, a day later and upon further review, what was the reaction? Pretty much the same.
On Thursday’s “Morning Joe,” co-host Willie Geist said, “It goes without saying that Donald Trump would not be given the same treatment, talked over, not allowed to finish those questions. It doesn’t mean the topics weren’t fair. There was a lot in there that viewers wanted to hear from Kamala Harris. Why do you have different positions now than you did in 2019? How are you going to fix the immigration crisis? All fair, fair questions. But Donald Trump obviously would never be treated that way on Fox News.”
Actually, that’s true.
CNN’s Brian Stelter went back and compared Baier’s style while interviewing Harris and, last year, Trump. Stelter noted that Trump was asked some tough questions (and I remember praising Baier at the time), but Stelter also wrote, “Baier was more animated when questioning Harris, as if he knew that Fox’s conservative base wanted to see her squirm in her seat. Overall, Baier interrupted Harris at least 38 times in 27 minutes, about twice as often as Baier interjected with Trump (at least 28 times in 36 minutes).”
Stelter also looked at Baier’s opening questions for Trump and Harris. The first Trump question was a softball: “What do you think is the most important issue facing the country right now?” His first question of Harris was way more aggressive: “How many illegal immigrants would you estimate your administration has released into the country over the last three-and-a-half years?”
Stelter commented, “What a striking difference. With Trump, he warmed up his subject, tried to make Trump comfortable. With Harris, he went for the jugular right away.”
“Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski really blasted Baier, saying, “It was supposed to give viewers an opportunity to actually hear her plans as president. Instead, as you saw, it almost immediately devolved into an embarrassing, bad-faith effort by a once-respected host to play to an audience of one. The host’s constant rude interruptions were designed to distract from the issues and facts that Trump and his acolytes try to twist and distort every day, and on Fox News they try to avoid. And they couldn’t.”
Brzezinski added, “When Kamala Harris realized the host was not going to let her speak, the only way the Vice President could give Fox viewers an opportunity to hear what she had to say was to talk back over him. Was he making sure that happened? I personally think absolutely. Did she do well in this environment? Of course, she was great. She’s a former prosecutor, attorney general, senator, current vice president. She’s fine with a situation like that and even flourishes. Yet there were times she was shaky on answers about immigration. He kept coming after her. But the questions sounded like they came from a Trump campaign ad. In fact, they played a Trump campaign ad in the interview.”
Speaking on CNN, Stelter said, “She essentially walked into a Trump campaign field office because anchor Bret Baier, who is, you know, a solid journalist, he is also incredibly sympathetic to Trump because that’s what his fans want. That’s what his viewers want. His viewers want him to represent the Trump point of view. So, it was almost as if you had a Trump surrogate interviewing Kamala Harris.”
Again, let’s be clear here. There is nothing wrong with tough questions. But they need to be fair and, most importantly, they need to be answered. And far too often, Harris was not afforded the opportunity to answer them.
Stelter told CNN host Kaitlan Collins, “Adversarial interviews are a good thing. We should root for them. We should want more of them. You know, you’re so fantastic at adversarial interviews where we challenge newsmakers and we get the answers out of them. But yes, this was a Rorschach test. Some people think Baier was mansplaining. Other people think Harris was filibustering. I think at the end of the day, this is all about one word. The word ‘tough.’ It showed that Harris was tough. She went into the so-called Fox den, and that’s how Harris’s campaign’s promoting it.”
It’s true that Harris did seem to hold her own throughout the interview. And, as soon as it was over, Baier defended his interview while his Fox News colleagues patted him on the back. Check out this insightful conversation from The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple, Chris Suellentrop, politics editor for Post Opinions, and Slate’s Josh Levin, host of the podcast “Slow Burn: The Rise of Fox News.”
Levin noted, “It is funny that he immediately went into the spin room and Harris left.”
Suellentrop said, “Baier closed his show by complaining that he didn’t get to ask all his questions. This feels like the reverse of when a politician complains about the debate moderators. I don’t think a journalist can lose an interview. If his goal was to butter up a few of those Fox News superfans by a ritual display of toughness, I can see why he was disappointed.”
