Could the media already have tired of The Silence of the Kams? Up through yesterday, America's institutional media have contented themselves with Stenogralism, offering Kamala Harris' narrative delivered off the record as their own reporting. Despite having a full press pool on Air Force Two, the media hasn't asked for so much as a white paper on any issue in the election, let alone point out that Harris hasn't actually formulated a policy platform at all.

Today, however, the leader of the Protection Racket Media signaled their curiosity -- at least -- about what Harris plans to do if she wins the election. Following up on a Trump tax-cut plan that they conceded could make a difference in the election, the New York Times wondered where Harris' economic plan might be ... and when voters can see it. Their headline wasn't exactly subtle about it, either:

Trump’s Tax Plan Could Add Trillions in Debt. Harris’s Is a Mystery.

Jim Tankersley, the NYT's reporter on the economy and policy, was only slightly less subtle:

Independent analyses suggest Mr. Trump’s plans could add close to $4 trillion over the next decade to America’s already fast-growing national debt, even after factoring in additional revenues from new taxes he wants to impose on imports.

It is impossible to make a similar estimate for Vice President Kamala Harris, Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent this fall. She has not laid out any tax or spending plans, or other economic policy proposals, with enough detail to estimate whether they would add to deficits or reduce them.

Tankersley then goes into an extended analysis of all of Trump's economic proposals, largely because Trump has economic proposals. Tankersley is a pretty good analyst and worth reading, and he raises the same deficit and debt concerns I raised in relation to his Social Security proposal to make benefits tax-free. It's worth reading all the way down to where he once again points out that Harris doesn't have any proposals to analyze:

Ms. Harris, who began seeking the Democratic nomination late last month immediately after Mr. Biden stepped aside and endorsed her, has no policy proposals posted on her campaign website — economic or otherwise.

As if that's not bad enough, Harris' campaign wouldn't confirm that Kamala still supports Joe Biden's budget proposal from March. That has plenty of fiscal "question marks," Tankersley observes, primarily related to tax-cut promises Biden made at that time too. Tankersley apparently asked for more details on what Harris will do as president, and the campaign referred him to Harris' stump speech in Atlanta. That's very thin gruel, Tankersley observes:

In them, Ms. Harris discusses tax and spending plans only in broad terms, including promises for “affordable health care, affordable child care, paid leave.” She offers no details that would allow for even a ballpark estimate of the costs of her agenda.

Since she became the nominee, Ms. Harris does not appear to have mentioned budget deficits or the federal debt in any remarks.

Now, Tankersley's just one reporter, and generally more independent and focused on his beat than most. I'd expect him to speak up about the Silence of the Kams strategy ahead of other reporters, especially those on the political beat. However, seeing this in the New York Times and especially with this particular headline sends a message of patience running thin. It's one thing to run a vibe campaign for the first few days, but vibing does not a president make. Nor does refusing to do interviews or take questions on the record count as a "media strategy," at least not for long.

If it's a signal by the NYT to the rest of the media, why now? Perhaps the exposure of media coordination with the Harris team on the Silence of the Kams embarrassed them into it. Presumably the NYT has a reporter in the AF2 pool, and if so, then my observation yesterday applies to them as well:

By being complicit in this, the reporters on the Harris-Walz campaign have ceased being journalists at all. They are either activists working to get her elected and passing along the message of the day, or they are engaged in stenography for the campaign to curry favor. 

That quote alone should humiliate every "reporter" in the Harris pool. It should stick to their careers for decades, and would ... if their editors and executives weren't also on board with their Stenogralism.

At least the NYT has managed to observe once that the Anointed Emperor wears no substantive clothes. And the NYT isn't alone, either. The New Yorker asked its Where's the Beef question yesterday. Kinda, anyway:

Other Presidential candidates have risen above that muck, too—often the highly charismatic ones, like John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Obama—but I can’t think of a race that was quite as unmoored as this one from the actual details of governance. Trump has been insisting that he doesn’t actually know anything about Project 2025. Harris’s campaign Web site, meanwhile, does not even have a policy section, or an articulation of beliefs. There’s just a button to donate, some merch and yard signs, and a biography that describes her as “the daughter of parents who brought her to civil rights marches in a stroller.” ...

A generic candidate who promises nothing on the campaign trail and is unburdened by any past might be the dream of electoral-politics nerds, but it’s the job of the press in a healthy democracy to make sure that voters know whom they’re supporting. An unexamined candidate can become anything, and can work under the influence of anyone, when they assume power. This week, Wes Moore, the Democratic governor of Maryland, suggested on CNBC that a Harris Administration would change course from Biden’s more restrictive regulatory economic policies and create a friendlier atmosphere for “our large industries.” Was he speaking on Harris’s behalf? Does he know something that Harris has declined to share with the public herself?

That's not quite a ringing call for substance, but at least it acknowledges the obvious. Kamala Harris has no policy positions on issues, and the media has thus far been complicit in allowing her to get away with it. Will that be enough to shake the Protection Racket Media out of its Stenogralism and push Harris to answer for herself?