Michigan Public sent Republican gubernatorial candidate John James and Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rogers interview requests multiple times through multiple contacts as part of its ongoing coverage of the 2026 midterm election. Neither campaign responded to our requests.
That’s not to say they’ve not been interacting with the media. Rogers went on NBC’s Meet the Press, while James appeared on The Sage Steele Show and Fox News. Both candidates have also participated in debates and interviews with local stations like Fox 2 Detroit and WXYZ.
This is a similar phenomenon to one NPR noted in 2022, where political journalists around the country had different experiences in getting candidates for interviews.
This isn’t a standalone incident. In fact, outlets have been reporting on candidates skipping debates and barring certain press since the last midterm election. Even during this midterm, ABC News reported out of the 36 gubernatorial races, 21 will not have debates. That’s in contrast to the two out of 36 races in 2018 and eight out of 36 in 2022. They reported that the number is more stark when looking at U.S. Senate races.
So, why would some candidates choose to not appear in certain outlets? While we can’t read minds, we can offer some explanations and how these choices ultimately affect the voter.
Why?
With the rise of social media, candidates don’t have to rely on traditional media, like broadcast or print/online journalism, to reach their constituents. They can launch effective, partisan social media campaigns to get their message across.
This was maybe demonstrated best by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s campaign before and after the election.
“Historically, governments have communicated through proclamations or missives without any expectation that leaders would answer questions in return,” said Joyojeet Pal, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Information.
“Social media can recreate some aspects of that relationship while making it appear much more participatory,” he said.
Another reason might be that it just doesn’t align with their campaign strategy. In an interview with NPR, Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist, said it’s not worth the risk.
“The possibility that you might end up saying something that winds up in $10 million worth of ads from the other side — you know, it's like the benefit of doing the interview does not outweigh the risk,” Jennings said.
In the same interview, Mark Harris, a Pennsylvania-based Republican strategist, said candidates are more likely to focus on local rather than national press.
“The best thing you can still do is get a 6 o'clock local, you know, NBC, ABC, CBS TV news hit,” Harris said. “Local TV is No. 1, and local print is No. 2.”
Although that might not be the case with Michigan’s Republican gubernatorial or Senate candidates.
What about voters?
So, what happens when leaders begin to opt out of certain methods of communication?
In an interview with Michigan Advance, Nicholas Valentino, a political science and research professor in the Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan, said in order to hold elected officials accountable on their stance, their constituents have to know who they are.
Pal said that happens through interaction with journalists rather than social media.
“Historically, governments have communicated through proclamations or missives without any expectation that leaders would answer questions in return,” Pal said. “Social media can recreate some aspects of that relationship while making it appear much more participatory.”
So where does that leave us with James and Rogers?
James and Rogers have participated in debates and interviews with other media outlets, giving voters opportunities to hear their positions on issues facing Michigan and the country, but as candidates gain more ways to communicate directly with voters, they also have more control over when, where, and how they answer questions.
Independent interviews offer something different: an opportunity for journalists to ask follow-up questions, seek clarification and press candidates on issues they may not otherwise address.
And while the reasons James and Rogers have not responded to Michigan Public's requests remain unclear, their absence raises a broader question about political accountability: As candidates become more selective about who gets to question them, what does that mean for voters trying to make informed decisions?
