If you were among those curious about J.D. Vance’s positions on key issues, you got some answers the other day when the GOP vice presidential nominee sat for three separate TV interviews. But what you actually learned depended on which program you watched — because the questioning varied widely and was, to use the term of the moment, a bit weird.

The sessions were conducted in the same place, on the same day, for about the same length of time (25 minutes). The interviewers were three accomplished veterans: Margaret Brennan of CBS, Dana Bash of CNN and Jonathan Karl of ABC.

Bash was the most combative as she dwelled on the recent fussing between Vance and Democrat Tim Walz over Walz’s military record and Vance’s criticism of Americans who don’t have children. Bash asked Vance how he felt about Walz referring to him as “weird.” She even brought up Donald Trump’s odd statements about his presidential opponent, asking Vance, “Do you believe Kamala Harris is Black?”

Brennan stayed away from all those topics. She was more low key but persistent in asking about child tax credits, breaking up giant companies, refugees from Afghanistan and trade with China.

Karl was the most conversational, asking Vance about deportation of undocumented immigrants and gender-affirming legislation. He questioned Vance about the notion that Americans with kids should get an extra vote in elections.

The only topic addressed in all three interviews was abortion.

The range of subjects was so varied that during two interviews — on ABC and CNN — Vance made a plea for questions relating to inflation, housing and foreign policy, but got none. He asked Bash why she never asked about immigration.

I understand the challenges facing TV hosts when they get an early crack at interviewing someone like Vance. It’s tempting to shoot first at the headlines, especially the more sensational ones, as Dana Bash did. It’s reasonable to go a bit afield, as Margaret Brennan and Jon Karl sought to do.

Considering the tightness of the race coupled with the profound differences between the parties there is a need for more meaningful interviews with all the candidates. It would help, of course, if Harris and Walz agreed to participate.

As Ted Koppel, a master back when TV did more probing Q&A, told me recently, “An interview is nothing more than a stylized conversation. You can dominate a conversation, but then the conversation is about you. The whole point of an interview is to learn about the other person.”

–

Copyright 2024 Peter Funt distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Peter Funt’s latest book is “Playing POTUS: The Power of America’s Acting Presidents,” about comedians who impersonated presidents.