archive.is link, if you hit a paywall: https://archive.ph/RF9jn
Democratic candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gets his first national town hall with NewsNation, as the media grapples with another conspiratorial candidate. “There’s a difference between giving him a town hall and just covering his candidacy,” one network executive says.
Honestly, could we ignore him? He’s a fringe candidate with a near-zero chance of reaching nomination. What impact does he have on the race other than to act as a potential spoiler and distraction candidate?
You’ll remember that few weeks back, Joe Rogan challenged vaccine researcher Peter Hotez to debate RFK on his podcast.
When Hotez rightfully refused (I mean, what is the point of debating a pigeon), Elon Musk couldn’t resist piling on – accusing Hotez of being “scared” of debate. Cue the hooting across the bird site. (The whole thing reminded me of that scene with the apes at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I digress).
Anyhoo, the whole Rogan-Hotez-Musk episode, aside from being a low point in U.S. social-scientific discourse, raises all sorts of questions about how deeply one engages kookiness.
I tend to fall into the “laugh and ignore” camp because scientific truth can never be settled by who yells the loudest, and … again, pigeons … but there is a lot of room for nuance in determining the best way to combat misinformation. Particularly among populations in a position to be hurt by it. (anti-VAX nonsense and the elderly being a prime example).
I don’t care if a candidate’s chances are low. The content of what he has to say is why I want to ignore him.
Hopefully if we ignore him, the media won’t amplify him quite as much.
Honestly, could we ignore him?
we can, but obviously that’s not going to make much of a difference if the media doesn’t–and quite a lot of media outlets seem to be refusing to just ignore him. RFK Jr also has quite an audience already and promotes extremely harmful viewpoints, so the extent to which ignoring him is useful is, i think, debatable on some grounds. it may or may not be a good idea to let him spout anti-vaccine rhetoric unchecked.
My concern is based on what happened with Trump. The more we debated him in 2016, and the more he was criticized in the media, the more his profile grew.
Of course the media won’t do the sensible thing- Where’s the profit incentive in that?
But perhaps by being indifferent instead of outraged, we’ll not encourage them to write quite so much about him.
Trump, and I think RFK jr, appeal to anti-establishment people. When the establishment media criticize them, it validates their anti-establishment credentials.
Media like them because they’re controversial, and controversy drives engagement. I’m sure they see RFK jr as the ‘left wing’ Trump and great for the bottom line.
The one thing we can do, maybe, is to not engage. Try not to think about him.
We should have tried that with Trump.
It is obvious why he is running and why NewsNation is giving him a town hall. RFK Jr. has only gotten three party endorsements; Bernie got more and better ones.
He should be treated as someone who isn’t going to win.
Michael Smerconish gave RFK Jr. a handjob on national television. It was frankly shocking to stumble across live.
It’s interesting how Smerconish restyled himself as a moderate, after being one of Limbaugh’s guest hosts in the ‘90s.
Just because someone has something to say, doesn’t mean the rest of us HAVE to listen.
I will be honest I’m out of the loop on this guy. Is he running left of Bernie and Jill Stine? Because that sure seems like a poor plan. The Democrats are not like the Republican primaries where they have to out extreme right until the general election.
