https://youtu.be/eM71YhmxM0I?si=enqTfTAMnMfryevR

The recent interview with Kamala Harris on CNN raised some intriguing questions, especially regarding its production style. I couldn’t help but notice that the entire segment felt more like a carefully crafted production package than a spontaneous interview. 🤔

From the start, the segments were formatted to resemble a TV show, where you’re shown a sneak peek of what’s coming. The beginning of each part gave a quick teaser, which felt almost like an in-kind donation from CNN to Harris. It was as if they’d meticulously pre-recorded and edited everything to align with her narrative. But here’s the kicker: the questions asked during the interview were actually tough and challenging. 🎤

One of the best questions came from Dana Bash, who asked, “You’ve been in office for three years, so how do you respond to the criticism that you haven’t achieved XYZ?” Another notable moment was when they played an old clip of Harris opposing fracking and then asked her to explain why she’s now in favor of it. It was a moment that could’ve made her uncomfortable, yet she managed to dance around the question. 💃

However, the package-style format didn’t necessarily make her look good. Quite the opposite—there was something odd about the whole setup, making it feel staged rather than authentic. And what’s more perplexing is how the production came across as a “gift,” yet the content wasn’t entirely flattering. What does that say about the nature of political interviews today? Are they pre-designed to protect candidates, or do they aim to challenge them genuinely? 🤷‍♂️

---