In today’s media landscape, traditional political campaigns seem lacklustre compared to the spectacle often seen in modern politics. Kamala Harris’ campaign strategy is a good example of this, reflecting a style that’s more about substance than spectacle. Yet, in a world that prioritizes sensationalism, her approach struggles to hold the spotlight. Is this a flaw in her campaign—or a reflection of our evolving expectations of politics and the media?
The Attention Economy and Why Harris Struggles to Stand Out
In recent years, media coverage of politics has become all about catching eyes and clicks. Scandals, controversies, and outlandish behaviour have reshaped what’s considered newsworthy, largely driven by Donald Trump’s media-dominating style. His infamous advisor, Steve Bannon, even advocated “flooding the zone with…excrement” to keep media focus fixated on his moves, ensuring little space was left for calmer, issue-focused campaigns.
For Kamala Harris—a classic politician focused on issues and policy—this presents a unique challenge. Her campaign is steady and predictable, an attempt to focus on policy over personality. But when was the last time quiet consistency made headlines? In the modern “attention economy,” campaigns like hers struggle to cut through the noise, raising questions about what we value in political coverage.
Key Factors Contributing to Harris’ Media Struggle
-
Consistency Isn’t Compelling in Modern Media
Media thrives on the unexpected, on scandals and confrontations. Harris’ approach, which avoids controversy, doesn’t satisfy the media’s demand for dramatic narratives. -
Traditional Campaign Style vs. the ‘New Normal’
Harris’ approach hearkens back to campaigns of the pre-viral age. But today’s political norms have shifted. A focus on decorum and issue-driven messages feels almost out of place compared to Trump’s bombastic style. -
Media Expectations Have Changed
In a world accustomed to conflict and spectacle, “normal” campaigns can feel invisible. News agencies, constantly fighting for clicks, find it harder to give spotlight to issue-based coverage when the “shock-driven” campaign proves so much more profitable.
Trump’s Strategy: Chaos as a Campaign Tool
One major difference between Trump and Harris is the intentional chaos Trump generates. His rallies are full of insults, intense rhetoric, and constant attacks. It’s the political equivalent of setting a garbage truck on fire while shouting at passersby, grabbing attention in the most jarring way possible. This unpredictability translates directly into media coverage, as every word and action is dissected for potential headlines.
By contrast, Harris opts for traditional stump speeches, clear-cut policy proposals, and a consistent message. When she spoke at the Ellipse, a symbolic site given its role in the events of January 6, her speech aimed to reinforce the importance of democratic stability. It wasn’t headline-grabbing in the traditional sense but was a deliberate attempt to position herself against Trump’s chaos. But despite the importance of this message, it didn’t generate the same fervor.
Why “Normal” Politics Don’t Feel “Normal” Anymore
The concept of “normal” has been redefined in recent years. Trump’s approach has rewritten expectations, making Harris’ traditional, policy-driven campaign feel unusual. But should this shift be alarming?
In truth, Harris’ campaign may be “normal” in its attempt to focus on ideas rather than insults. In a political world flooded with controversy, the calm, competent campaign can feel almost revolutionary. Perhaps, then, it’s time for the media—and audiences—to reconsider their biases.
Why Consistency and Focus on Issues Still Matter
-
Harris Brings Substantive Policy Focus
As a woman of colour, Harris’ presence in the race brings a historic dimension to her campaign. She is navigating a path no woman of colour has trodden before in a general election. The message is clear: returning to a government driven by issues rather than insults. -
Traditionalism is Not Boring; It’s Stable
Harris aims to bring back a style that prioritizes stability. When media attention skips over policy-based campaigns, we miss out on critical dialogues about issues that impact daily lives. Harris represents a call for calm, something lost in the “shock-first” approach the media often embraces.
The Media’s Role: Are We Equipped to Cover ‘Normal’ Politics?
As much as Harris may feel like an anomaly, perhaps the challenge lies less in her campaign style and more in our readiness to cover a traditional campaign effectively. Today’s media ecosystem is incentivized to promote the shocking and the scandalous, while even significant policy speeches can be overlooked if they don’t “shock.”
In this sense, the onus falls on media as much as on politicians. For reporters and news outlets, Harris’ campaign should be a reminder to address the quieter but vital parts of political discourse. Voters need coverage that prioritizes policies, solutions, and stability over mere spectacle.
Conclusion: Rethinking What We Value in Political Campaigns
Ultimately, Harris’ traditional, issues-focused approach may feel unfamiliar in today’s politics, but that’s what makes it valuable. A campaign driven by consistency, stability, and policy could be exactly what voters need. However, whether the media—and audiences—are ready to embrace that remains a question only time will answer.
In the end, Harris may or may not shift her approach. But her campaign is a reminder that stability and policy-first approaches still have a place in our democracy. And, just maybe, it’s time we start paying closer attention.
Learn More:
- Kamala Harris – Kamala Harris’ biography on Britannica
- media coverage of political campaigns – Analysis of media coverage trends on Pew Research
- shock-driven political campaigns – The rise of shock-based media coverage on CNN
