Vice President Kamala Harris has once again taken center stage, this time calling out the powerful figures allegedly pulling the strings behind recent significant decisions made by major media outlets like The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. During her appearance on The Breakfast Club, she expressed disappointment over the two newspapers' decision not to endorse any presidential candidate for the upcoming election, casting it as an act of allegiance to the interests of billionaires, particularly those tied to former President Donald Trump.
Harris's comments came shortly after the owners of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, and Los Angeles Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong, announced their stance of non-endorsement. "It’s billionaires in Donald Trump’s club," Harris asserted, emphasizing how the decision reflects the priorities of the wealthy elite rather than the broader public interest. This narrative echoes her previous critiques of how concentrations of wealth influence media and politics.
Trump, who has repeatedly launched attacks against media entities he perceives as doing him wrong, remains a polarizing figure. Harris noted the gravity of Trump's threats against these outlets and the potential chilling effect it could have on journalism and free expression. Historically, his rhetoric has strummed the chords of political animosity, often targeting those who question or criticize him. Yet, the vice president appears undeterred as she makes her case about the need for accountability, especially from Trump.
Harris reminded listeners about the significant tax cuts enacted under Trump’s administration, highlighting how they disproportionately benefited the ultra-wealthy and large corporations. Referring to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, she explained how the legislation did little to alleviate the financial burdens faced by the middle class and did not deliver on Trump's promises for job growth. "If he gets another term, I have no doubt he will do it again," Harris claimed.
The media backlash has sparked public outrage; reports indicate significant subscriber cancellations from The Washington Post, with estimates around 200,000 accounts terminated due to the non-endorsement decision. Editorial board member resignations followed, with at least two prominent figures leaving their posts over the matter. This response underlines the tension brewing within the media industry concerning its role and responsibility during election cycles.
Bezos justified the decision to end the endorsement tradition, positing it was meant to preserve the Post’s perceived independence from bias, stating, "What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias." Critics, including Harris, countered this reasoning as disingenuous, especially considering the timing and the backdrop of election season.
Adding to the controversy, USA Today also opted not to endorse any candidate. This has led to heightened scrutiny around the influence of wealth on journalism and media ethics. Harris’s criticisms reflect growing concerns about the potential influence of money on political processes, particularly when billionaires take center stage. She underscored the need for the political conversation to focus more on the middle and lower classes—a segment she believes Trump ignores.
Harris did not shy away from addressing her own political position when called out on the struggles to gain traction among Black male voters. She asserted her dedication to boosting community efforts, helping first-time homebuyers, and backing small business owners. "You have to earn their vote," she concluded, reiterantly connecting her policy objectives directly to the needs of underrepresented communities.
Underpinning Harris's remarks is the rising alarm about the consequences of another Trump presidency, which she pegged as potentially leading toward autocracy. Trump’s candidacy, according to Harris, raises questions about the future of democratic institutions, making it imperative for voters to critically examine not just the candidates but also the powerful interactions within media and politics.
Through her unapologetic critique of Trump's connections to the billionaire class and the media's response to it, Harris hopes to reignite discussions about equity, representation, and accountability leading up to the 2024 election. The stakes, as she argues, are far too high to be decided by the whims of wealth and privilege.
With the election fast approaching, Harris's strong words reflect the urgent need for clarity and testing of all political candidates, especially those connected with the wealthy elite. This moment can serve as not just yet another campaign chapter but as part of the larger conversation about who truly influences democracy and how those influences manifest during pivotal electoral moments. Having laid out her perspective, Harris seems ready to engage voters more directly, presenting her vision for the future amid the tumult of national politics.
