News media need a plan for dealing with Kamala Harris slander

criticism of kamala harris’ laugh is petty and irrelevant. SOME other criticisms, though, are destructive and reprehensible.

Do you know how long it took after Joe Biden withdrew from the presidential race for some Donald Trump supporters to publicly slam Kamala Harris with sexist and racist criticisms? Trick question. It started before he withdrew.

And it’s not going to stop anytime soon. Ethical news media have to figure out if and how they give it attention and whether their same ol’ same ol’ practices are going to work for one of the country’s most monumental elections ever.

Opposition attacks on the actions, policies and credentials of any political figure are relevant and newsworthy, even if they’re false. Wrong statements are the unfortunate price of having the open civic conversations that we need. And I still believe in the ability of the press to “knock down” falsehoods if they do it immediately and forcefully with facts.

But criticism rooted in mere demographics is a whole different category. The prospect of America’s first female president – and oh my gosh she’s of mixed race too – has triggered the worst of the Trump supporters to spew blatant racist and misogynistic vitriol in interviews and on social media. (This happened in 2020 too.)

Harris is inarticulate (Kellyanne Conway). She’s lazy (Conway again). She’s annoying (Republican National Committee). She has no children of her own (former Ron DeSantis campaign official Will Chamberlain). She slept her way to the top (Megyn Kelly, Milo Yiannopoulos and Trump himself). She’s at the top only because of DEI (Republican U.S. Reps. Tim Burchett and Chip Roy).

Such remarks are hateful, of course, and perpetuate highly destructive stereotypes about Blacks and women.

Stuff like this will spread uncontrolled on social media, but what should more responsible news media do? There’s a persuasive argument that they should report on it because such nastiness – whether it represents true belief or merely a low-road political tactic – is a measure of candidate character and ethics that the public deserves to know about. It may also suggest a candidate bereft of legitimate criticisms.

Here's the big problem with that argument: The noble calling out of hateful rhetoric gives it greater circulation, or as academics say, amplifies it. And it’s getting amplified to segments of the public that are gullible. While it may simply harden the existing views of some people, it’s alarming to think such garbage might sway even a few minds in a massively consequential presidential election that figures to be close.

The news media are “a powerful mediator between candidates and the voting public either by unwittingly supporting the racial message agenda of candidates or by confronting or refusing to communicate a racial frame of reference for a given contest,” researchers Charlton McIlwain and Stephen Caliendo wrote* in 2011.

I like confronting, which to me means exposing motive, explaining dog whistles, and clear labeling of racism/sexism in publication. But we may stand at a moment when it’s necessary for the media to consider refusing.

Stuck in my traditional ways, I think we need to know everything the Republican nominee for president says. But I’d be fine if for the next three months journalists chose to ignore the surrogates and sycophants supporting him when they engage in offensive commentary like we are seeing against Kamala Harris.

With stakes this high, customary reportage, no matter how confrontational, may fail the nation.

 *Credit to my colleague Dr. A.J. Bauer for calling my attention to this reference