As the Democratic National Convention kicks off, one aspect that has drawn significant attention is Vice President Kamala Harris’s media strategy—or rather, the lack thereof. It’s no secret that Harris has been notably absent from the press circuit, with her team seemingly opting to shield her from too many direct media interactions. This approach has sparked considerable debate, particularly among critics who question whether Harris can effectively articulate her policies or handle the scrutiny that comes with being in the spotlight.

One of the most glaring issues has been Harris’s tendency to fall into what many have dubbed “word salads” when discussing her policy initiatives. A recent example occurred during an appearance in Pennsylvania, where a straightforward question about her economic plan led to a muddled response that left more questions than answers. This has become a recurring theme, making it challenging for her to connect with the public on the details of her agenda.

Interestingly, her official campaign website reflects this same avoidance. There’s a noticeable lack of specific policy details available for public consumption, which might seem like an effort to prevent providing a hook for media scrutiny. The absence of detailed plans also means that the media, typically a critical player in analyzing and questioning campaign promises, has little to go on when it comes to Harris’s vision for the future. This vacuum could be seen as a deliberate move by her team to avoid tough questions about how these policies would be funded or implemented, especially given the ambitious and costly nature of her proposals.

Adding to the narrative is the recent commentary from Harris surrogate Kaivan Shroff on ABC News. Shroff indicated that the Harris team expects the media to flesh out her policies on their behalf, much like they did for President Biden. This admission is telling. It not only suggests a reliance on the media to do the heavy lifting in explaining her platform but also highlights a potential lack of confidence in Harris’s ability to effectively communicate these ideas herself.

This strategy raises several concerns. First, it underscores the perception that Harris may not be comfortable engaging with the media in unscripted settings—a critical skill for any candidate. Secondly, it implies that her campaign might be banking on sympathetic coverage to carry her through the election cycle, a risky bet given the unpredictable nature of media narratives. Finally, it feeds into a broader critique that Harris, despite her position, may not be a strong candidate, especially in the wake of President Biden’s decision not to seek re-election.

As the convention unfolds, it remains to be seen whether this approach will pay off or if it will backfire, leaving Harris vulnerable to the very scrutiny her team seems intent on avoiding. One thing is certain: the media’s role in shaping her campaign will be under the microscope, and whether they can—or will—bridge the gaps in her messaging is a question that will likely persist throughout the election season.