Mainstream media are surprisingly muted at the prospect of the world’s most powerful nation being led for the first time by a woman – specifically a woman of colour, Vice President Kamala Harris. Using past elections as our guide, we could have expected an outpouring of commentary on this potentially historic moment. Why haven’t we seen this?

We could point to the gravity of the election, as Trump and the Republicans ramp up their ethnonationalist rhetoric. We could also point to a continuing desire in media circles for disunity in the Democratic Party; the chances of which have been stymied by Biden’s late withdrawal from the nomination process followed by a swift endorsement of Harris.

But the best and most simple explanation is simply that the legacy media have not –at least for the first few days of her campaign – taken Harris’s candidacy seriously enough. The reason is that they have not taken Harris herself seriously enough.

Narratives about Harris’ 2019 campaign for the nomination to lead the Democratic Party ticket said it was “unclear what she stood for”. We have heard that judgment repeated in recent days, including in liberal media op-eds and podcasts.

Critics deplore her vice-presidency as another period in which Harris has failed to put her stamp on any particular issue. And yet, at the same time, they note how strong she is on abortion.

And there’s the rub. The issue on which Harris is electoral gold – a person’s right to decide on medical procedures pertaining to reproduction or gender presentation —is not one the legacy media regard as genuinely important. Too many regard the issue as a minority interest rather than a universal one.

Instead, we are getting endless think pieces on how Harris is not qualified enough for the role, as if 30-odd years in public service, including two terms as district attorney in California and two as state attorney-general, four years as a US senator and four years as vice-president,........

© The Conversation