It’s going to be ugly, that much is already clear.
In the few days since Kamala Harris began her 2024 campaign for president, the media has shown us where some of their coverage is headed: no place good.
Both the rightwing and traditional media are making some predictable blunders. Add in the swill that circulates endlessly on the social media platforms, and you’ve got a mess.
Take, for example, the recent coverage of a Republican congressman’s smear of Harris.
“One hundred percent she is a DEI hire,” Tim Burchett of Tennessee said on CNN, using the acronym for “diversity, equity and inclusion” to claim that she was ascending because of her race, not on merit. “Her record is abysmal at best.”
An NBC headline was one of many to hand a giant megaphone to this racist trope: “GOP Rep Tim Burchett calls Kamala Harris a ‘DEI vice-president’.” Plenty of others did the same – parroting and thus amplifying the slur.
Some news organizations added a fig leaf to their coverage, like the Tampa TV station whose headline read: “GOP representative called Harris a ‘DEI hire’: what does this mean?”
There was a more responsible way to go. USA Today, for one, brought helpful context in a piece headlined: “DEI candidate: what’s behind the GOP attacks on Kamala Harris.” It did a good job of explaining that this phrase is all part of the right’s anti-“woke” culture wars. “DEI has become GOP shorthand to impugn the qualifications of people of color who ascend to positions of power and influence.” The reporter quoted the author Mita Mallick noting that the DEI label is an attempt to “discredit, demoralize and disrespect leaders of color by labeling them ‘diversity hires’ – or otherwise misappropriating the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion as thinly veiled racist insults.” You come away with greater understanding.
Some insults are even more transparently racist, as when the perpetual liar and propagandist Kellyanne Conway went on Fox News in order to trash Harris: “She does not speak well. She does not work hard. She should not be the standard bearer for the party.”
These stereotypes, painting a woman of color as unintelligent and lazy, echo well-established white-grievance themes, causing the author Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who studies authoritarian movements, to warn: “Propagandists know that you should build on existing prejudices when introducing a new hate object or theme.”
Some commentary wasn’t racist but just pointless – as when Katy Tur asked, on MSNBC, if Harris was the kind of person voters would want to have a beer with. The “likeability” question certainly seems to come up for women candidates more than men.
It’s a familiar election-cycle cliche, but the former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob didn’t find it harmless. He posted his disgust: “I want a president who won’t turn our country into a fascist hellscape. I’m not auditioning barstool partners.”
Then there was the head-spinning opportunism of two columns in the Wall Street Journal by the same writer, Jason Riley, separated by only two weeks but managing to wildly contradict each other. The first headline, on 9 July: “Kamala Harris would be the best Democratic choice.” The second, on 23 July: “Kamala Harris isn’t the change Democrats need.”
Parker Molloy, in her newsletter The Present Age, called it “a textbook example of the intellectual dishonesty that plagues much of our political commentary”.
This hollow punditry is all about being provocative; consistency be damned.
So far, Harris and her allies seem to be capable of flipping some stereotypes on their head. When JD Vance’s description of Harris and other urban career women – “childless cat ladies” who are “miserable at their lives” – resurfaced after he was named Donald Trump’s running mate, his sexist diss went viral.
So did the backlash. Jennifer Aniston shot back at Vance, cat-lady apparel was sold at high volume, and Ella Emhoff posted on Instagram about her stepmother, also name-checking her brother: “How can you be ‘childless’ when you have cutie pie kids like Cole and I?”
Still, sexist and racist tropes take their toll. To be sure, Harris deserves fair scrutiny from the press. But she doesn’t deserve to be the target of smears and stereotypes amplified by journalists and pundits addicted to conflict-driven clicks.
As the election draws nearer, the media should consider the words of someone who has ridden in this rodeo.
Writing in the New York Times this week, Hillary Clinton predicted that Harris’s record and character “will be distorted and disparaged by a flood of disinformation and the kind of ugly prejudice we’re already hearing from Maga mouthpieces”.
Everybody has a role to play to prevent the spread. The campaign must find a way to cut through the noise, and voters must be careful about what they believe and share, as she urged.
And I would add that the media must avoid spreading hateful stereotypes. November’s election is far too consequential for that.
Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture
