Panelist Alencia Johnson exposed the media for their double standard. They are asking Kamala Harris for even more specifics while giving Donald Trump a pass.
Panelist calls out media for double standard with Kamala Harris.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
In the often biased and uneven landscape of mainstream media coverage, it’s no surprise that discussions around Vice President Kamala Harris are subject to a much different standard than those applied to former President Donald Trump. This reality was brought to light during a recent panel discussion, where political commentator Alencia Johnson made an important observation. The media, she argued, consistently demands that Harris provide “specifics” on her policies and proposals, while Trump is rarely if ever, held to the same level of scrutiny. Johnson’s point highlights a disturbing trend: a double standard in political coverage that is grounded in both sexism and the enduring protection of Trump by mainstream outlets.
The clip begins with the panelist noting that pundits have repeatedly questioned Kamala Harris’s plans for the economy and other policy areas. It’s a curious request given that Harris, as vice president, has been instrumental in executing landmark initiatives like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is bringing tangible benefits to Americans. While the media continues to press her for more details, the fact remains that she has already been part of major successes that are gradually improving lives across the country. These are measurable, data-backed achievements. Yet, the persistent demand for her to provide more information feels like an attempt to discredit her by moving the goalposts.
Conversely, Donald Trump has never been subject to the same kind of relentless questioning. The media appears content to let him slide by without offering any concrete plans, despite his strong association with extremist ideas like Project 2025, which includes frightening proposals such as monitoring women’s reproductive choices. Trump has continued to align himself with fringe ideologies without being asked to provide the same level of detail expected from his Democratic counterparts. This glaring disparity reflects a deep-seated bias in political journalism.
Johnson calls out this unfair treatment explicitly. As she put it, “The bar is higher for her given that she’s a woman, and yet Donald Trump… just gets to skate on by with no specifics at all.” Harris has consistently offered policy specifics, ranging from economic measures to reproductive rights, while Trump dodges questions or spews lies and generalities. When Harris takes part in a major interview, she remains “disciplined” and focused on policy, yet Trump can get away with incendiary rhetoric without ever laying out a coherent platform. The media’s failure to call this out profoundly affects the public’s understanding of their choices in upcoming elections.
This imbalance doesn’t just affect how candidates are perceived; it also shapes the broader political discourse. By holding Harris to a higher standard and allowing Trump to escape real scrutiny, the media reinforces harmful stereotypes about women in leadership. The underlying sexism in the coverage suggests that a woman — especially a woman of color like Harris — must be more prepared, more polished, and more detailed to be seen as legitimate. At the same time, men like Trump can present themselves as chaotic and unprepared and still receive serious consideration.
Johnson’s frustration is palpable as she asks why the same questions about policy specifics aren’t directed at Trump. This disparity in treatment isn’t just a product of individual biases but also reflects the broader systemic issues that plague media institutions. Corporate media outlets have long shown a tendency to favor sensationalism over substance, and Trump, with his bombastic style and disregard for facts, has long been a ratings magnet. Meanwhile, serious policy discussions — especially when led by women like Harris — often get buried under headlines focused on political theater.
In recent years, much of the American public has become more critical of the media’s role in shaping political narratives. However, many people still take their cues from mainstream outlets, which makes this double standard all the more dangerous. When Harris presents concrete plans — for example, advocating for child tax credits or housing affordability measures — they should be covered with the same seriousness as Trump’s inflammatory and vague rhetoric.
This situation speaks to a deeper problem in American political culture: the media’s role in perpetuating inequalities in evaluating candidates. Harris represents a competent, policy-driven leader yet is consistently undercut by a media landscape that often appears more interested in controversy than competence. On the other hand, Trump is allowed to skate by on the shallow appeal of his populist rhetoric, even though his presidency and subsequent campaigns have been bereft of real policy solutions for the country’s pressing issues.
This is an important reminder that media coverage is not neutral. The way the press covers Kamala Harris and Donald Trump reveals troubling double standards based on gender and political ideology. To combat this, the media and the public must demand better — not only from the candidates but also from those responsible for informing the electorate. The future of American democracy depends on a fair and balanced assessment of all candidates, regardless of their gender, race, or political affiliations.