The reactions to Vice President Kamala Harris’ CNN interview exemplify everything that is wrong with politics today and highlighted two of its most insidious afflictions: partisan blindness and proportionality absence.

I’m not just talking about Twitter (I still call it that even though X marks the spot), which is an often-unrepresentative sewer that amplifies minority views. But on cable news and in opinion pieces, with rare exception, the reflexive “She did so well” or “She was a disaster” seemed endlessly idiotic and detached from reality. I expect this from bots and boneheads. But it’s distressing to see this kind of thing from supposedly smart and thoughtful people, who have mortgaged their credibility to not deviate from a partisan or ideological position.

Who are you going to believe: Them or your own eyes?

Harris was vague and elusive, had obviously prepared the “I have not changed my values” shtick to deflect on her protean positions and clearly massaged what she knew and when she knew about President Joe Biden’s decline. She also provided very little insight into what she will do as president. (That sound you hear is her campaign folks cheering because they wanted the Hippocratic Oath performance.)

But Harris also was personable and relaxed, comfortable in her own skin and her demonstrated loyalty to Biden was, in a way, touching and admirable. Whether she appeared to be “presidential” is a matter of opinion and compared to … well, let me get to that in a bit.

Her performance — and these are all performances, let’s face it — was up to the moment, even as it revealed her obvious weaknesses and preference for vibes over specifics. (Again, the campaign aides cheer from the cheap seats.) But anyone who says that interview demonstrated she is ready to be president or that she is clearly unqualified to be president are simply wearing partisan blinders — or are paid to say those things.

You can’t talk about politics these days without also commenting on the journalism associated with campaigns, especially because our business has been under assault for so long and our approval ratings are often below … politicians. So here’s what I think about CNN and Dana Bash, who came under criticism from both sides — Democrats for asking what they called GOP-talking-point questions and Republicans for not following up enough:

CNN should not have agreed to have Tim Walz there — and please spare me all the memes of other presidential tickets that did joint interviews. This is a sui generis situation where the presidential nominee had not done any interviews with only a few weeks until the election. And the network should not have had the produced pieces of Bash following Harris around, which cut into the interview time and made the entire exercise seem truncated. That resulted in Walz being a potted plant for most of the interview, with Bash only nodding to his existence by asking him some quick — and legitimate — questions about some of his statements. (The notion he exaggerated his military service because he has bad grammar was a doozy, though!).

As for Bash, I have to acknowledge my bias because I have known her for years and have great respect for her. We have different styles — and I had fewer constraints when I did these types of interviews — but I thought she did a good job illuminating (or trying to) some key points. The notion that asking about Harris’ evolving positions is tantamount to mouthing Republican propaganda is nonsense, and those criticizing her for that would be thrilled if interviewers disgorged what Republicans call Democratic talking points when interviewing Republicans. And the criticism that she should not have asked Harris about Donald Trump’s “She just happened to turn Black” comment is ludicrous. Bash should have asked, and Harris smartly dismissed it, showing a discipline that is foreign to her opponent.

Which brings me to the question of proportionality, which has been lost in this election and in political discourse generally. I’ll state it simply as I have before:

Harris changing on fracking or holding far-left views she is now trying to elide does not compare to a man who tried to steal a second term by lying about voter fraud and inciting a mob. Trump has not only not had to answer for that, he is still perpetuating that disqualifying lie — among his many, many disqualifying statements since 2020. Why this would even be a controversial opinion is beyond me. Why it is even considered an opinion rather than a fact depresses me.

These same Republicans in their high dudgeon about Harris’ flip-flops are content to ignore Trump’s constant lies and position changes. He’s pro-choice, he’s pro-life, he brags about overturning Roe, now he’s pro-choice again in his desperation over Harris’ surge.

The idea, though, that Trump’s depredations are so egregious — and they are — means journalists should not bring all their diligence to pointing out Harris flip-flops or misstatements is ludicrous. This is not what the Left facilely calls “bothsidesism.” That is our job in covering campaigns, not to begin a question: “Well, we all know that Trump desecrating Arlington National Cemetery with a campaign photo-op is disgusting and doesn’t compare, but why did you hide from the American people that the president was in cognitive decline?”

I know many people are saying that the national media treats Trump differently and that that frustration morphs into lacerating criticism of how the media treated Biden and now Harris. I know I would interview Trump much differently if given the opportunity than almost everyone who has, and I do believe too much is simply dismissed as Trump being Trump. But there has been a raft of great reporting on Trump, exposing all manner of sociopathy and falsehoods. That’s how you know about it!

I find this criticism of journalists as tiresome and repetitive and mostly — not all — misguided or tendentious. Sure, say I am circling the wagons as we Fourth Estaters tend to do, but I also think we need to be more transparent and contrite when we need to be.

It saddens me that respected conservative outlets, many of whom have some of the best writers and thinkers in America, have chosen to downplay Trump’s disqualifying behavior because they find Harris’ ideology so offensive, or what they see (sometimes correctly) as the mainstream media’s enabling of Democrats.

The double standards and whataboutism on the Left are annoying, too, but not nearly as serious as those on the right who enabled Trump’s election denialism and are still genuflecting to preserve their own viability. Progressives who deny that Harris was anything but a terrible candidate for president and who defended Biden’s viability to the last and now love the vice president because she is a joyful warrior and can win are not very principled. But there is literally no evidence that Trump has any principles beyond his solipsistic pursuit of power and money and his disdain for foundational constitutional tenets. These things are not the same.

When the history of this period in our history is written, those who bent the knee or turned a blind eye will be clear. Or so I hope.

Jon Ralston is the CEO and editor of The Indy.