Concluding a New England vacation, I fell off the non-work wagon just outside Boston Sunday with a tweet from Kellyanne Conway, this week's Donald Trump campaign chief: “Day 267: No press conference. And no press outrage.”

An hour later an airport TV displayed CNN's Brian Stelter flicking at the Hillary Clinton topic with Stuart Stevens, the GOP strategist and author. It fell well short of outrage and likely did not assuage Conway. So do the accusations have merit?

NPR's David Folkenflik just weighed in on Clinton interviews. He found that, as advertised, she's done about 350 in the first seven months of the year. Many were one-on-ones with television, most were quite short (three to eight minutes) and about 20 percent with people who aren't really journalists, like the mayor of Miami Beach. (NPR) No surprise, she targets traditional Democratic constituencies, such as African-Americans and Latinos, and has done little with print publications, notably big-shot dailies, which may be viewed by the campaign as a bit too rigorous.

Press conferences? Clearly, they aren't much liked by a media-wary Clinton. That's probably due in part to the Clintons' nearly genetic predisposition to believing they've often been screwed, dating back to their Arkansas days. There's truth to the belief, but it doesn't justify the preternatural wariness and notorious parsing reflexively associated with the Clintons (and now, perhaps, also the painfully obtuse Ryan Lochte).

So amid the late-August languor, what do journalists think of all this?

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review: “She's running as close to a front-porch campaign as possible in the modern era. She hopes to win on the back of the organizational strength of her campaign and the weakness of Trump. She can't avoid the press entirely but is limiting access as much as possible and trying not to create any high-stakes events. Given that she has a tin ear politically, why create more opportunities for a slip-up than are necessary?”

Roland Martin, host and managing editor, NewsOneNow: “As a journalist, [I believe] Clinton should do more press availability. If not a news conference, far more interviews with national outlets. Clearly the networks have said phoning in is OK, so she should be doing 10-minute pops. Politically, this is smarter than holding freewheeling news conferences.”

Ron Fournier, National Journal: “This is not merely a question of news conferences versus interviews. It's about the broader, modern-era demand for accessibility, authenticity, transparency and accountability. Hillary Clinton and her communications team are stuck in the opaque, pre-internet '90s, which doesn't bode well for her presidency.”

Jill Lawrence, commentary editor, USA Today: “There are a lot of downsides for Clinton having a press conference. She's not good at them, she'd be asked about one controversy after another, and it would be political malpractice to distract from Trump's unraveling. That said, she should practice up and do a few starting very soon. She needs to demonstrate she can get through a press conference with poise and without self-inflicted damage. The longer she waits, the harder it gets.”

Finally, there's Mike Barnicle, the MSNBC analyst and longtime columnist who likely isn't the first political journalist to invoke the legacy of the most hallowed college basketball coach, UCLA's late John Wooden — and also a now forgotten hard court rules reality back in the day.

“John Wooden is her campaign manager. It's 1966 and there is no shot clock, so she's going to just run it out. Why would she expose herself to us when she is aware, totally aware, that she is incapable of speaking in a straight line about CGI (Clinton Global Initiative) or the home server? Plus she's paranoid.”