cover of NPR - Who is Robert Kennedy Jr?

NPR - Who is Robert Kennedy Jr?

NPR - Who is Robert Kennedy Jr?

0 followers

00:00-17:10

Transcription

The transcription is a conversation discussing the media's negative portrayal of Robert Kennedy Jr. It highlights the media's perception of him as a conspiracy theorist and the ways in which they try to undermine his credibility. The conversation also touches on the challenges journalists face when interviewing him and the importance of fact-checking his claims. Overall, the transcription portrays a critical view of Kennedy and suggests that he is a controversial and polarizing figure. So since we're talking about bunk, we might as well do the hit job that on the media did to poor Bobby the K. Okay, let's do the Bobby the K hit job, alrighty. Now everything about this is slanted and it's assumed, and I have to assume that they're sincere, they think Bobby the K, Robert Kennedy Jr., is nuts. He's a conspiracy theorist, he uses techniques to fool you, he's a liar, so let's go. And even his family hates him. Oh yeah, and we can't forget that, his family hates him because he's so off the rails. And by the way, the conclusion is, I'll get Muzzle to summarize that, it's only for his legacy he's doing this so people will remember he existed, he's such a loser. It's like a Trump thing, he's doing that just for his own ego, is that what they're saying? Yeah, yeah. Here you go, on the media. On the media, yeah. He's not going to win in November 2024, most likely he won't win the Democratic primary either. So even if he gets nowhere, just sticks it out through part of this election cycle, he'll garner plenty of media coverage, and his dangerous ideas will reach more people. Dangerous! My article was published on NBCNews.com a few weeks after our encounter, after I'd had plenty of time to fact check and contextualize his response. But not everyone's going to have that luxury. For help and advice on covering conspiracy peddling candidates on the trail, we called up Anna Merlin. She's the author of Republic of Lies, American Conspiracy Theorists and Their Surprising Rise to Power. In a recent article, Merlin described Kennedy's supporters as a, quote, coalition of anti-vax activists, crypto enthusiasts, Silicon Valley moguls, and supporters from across the horseshoe of extremism. The horseshoe of extremism. This is a good one. So on the left, Mr. Kennedy is obviously talking a lot about his bona fides as an environmental lawyer, which is the job he sort of did prior to becoming an anti-vaccine activist, and he is weighing heavily on the family name. On the right, on the far right, he is promoting frankly Trumpian talking points, for instance, talking about sealing the border permanently, blaming mass shootings on pharmaceutical drugs like Prozac. Anecdotally, it appears that almost every one of these shooters were on SRIs or some other psychiatric drugs. Promoting a view that the war in Ukraine is fundamentally a proxy war. President Biden has said that we're there to de-platform, to depose Vladimir Putin, and if that's why we're there, we're killing a lot of Ukrainians as pawns. He has said that he opposes trans women competing in women's sports. This guy is an, he's crazy. You can't have all this. And I like the last bit on her laundry list. He opposes, of all things, he opposes trans women competing in female sports. Oh my god, what a lousy guy. What a, this is just an a-hole, I tell you. So that was the laundry list of Democrat talking points, basically. We need a new list, we need a list for Bobby Decay, of all the things he is. I mean, he, he, he, he uses the horseshoe of extremism. Here we go, it's clip, I've never heard of this. He also has an incredibly combative and often litigious relationship with both mainstream media and sort of mainstream systems of government. He wants to persuade people who think they're Democrats that they're not Democrats and people who think they're Republicans that they're not Republicans, is how he put it to Dr. Drew. So he's presenting himself as kind of a nonpartisan everyman who is equally dissatisfied with both sides. So let's talk about how journalists and media outlets are handling this candidacy. You wrote that ABC and CNN demonstrated how not to cover RFK Jr. Yeah. What did they do wrong? Yeah. So this was a very kind of early, Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, Oh my God, we should just rename him Bobby the Q. I don't know why we even talk about this man, Adrena Krohn. RFK Jr. Yeah. What did they do wrong? So this is a very kind of early example of media platforms just not really being ready to cover Kennedy's candidacy. So what ABC did was they sat down for a fairly conventional Kennedy interview with Kennedy, but during it, he did what he does, which is he started spouting COVID and vaccine misinformation. And so he made the decision to just cut that portion from the interview and then tell their audience that that's what they were doing. It was just like vomit just spouting from his mouth from his orifice about vaccine disinformation. We should note that during our conversation, Kennedy made false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines. Data shows that the COVID-19 vaccines prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths from the disease. He's also made misleading claims about the relationship between vaccination and autism research. I think that it was a well-intentioned decision, but what it did was it gave Kennedy an incredibly powerful talking point to say, you see, my views on COVID and vaccines are so powerful and so threatening to the establishment that they cannot see the light of day. This is what happens when you censor somebody for 18 years. They shouldn't have shut me up that long. Now I'm going to really let loose on them for the next 18 months. They're going to hear a lot. Oh, let me guess. Next question. So, Becky. Becky, so what do we do with a candidate like Bobby the Q? What do we do, Becky? Actually, she got the second example first, and then it falls apart. You're right. That is kind of coming up. CNN was a little bit more unusual. Essentially, what happened is that a CNN political journalist named Michael Smirconish had Kennedy on and managed to use the word vaccines exactly once in his introduction and then proceeded to have a very friendly, jocular interview with Mr. Kennedy about his campaign that managed to not ask about his anti-vaccine activism at all. They spent more time talking about Mr. Smirconish's fandom of Sheryl Hines, Mr. Kennedy's wife. If I had not convinced her that I can win this race, I would not be in it because she's the ultimate boss. Okay, listen, I do love your wife. I'm Team Sheryl. Having said that... So it was really, really striking. So, okay, that's what journalists do wrong. How can we do things right? What's this with the... Wrong. What's the... With the G? Got to roll G. Wrong. I heard it before. This is new. Oh, I didn't notice this. What... That's what journalists do wrong. Wrong. Wrong. So it was really, really striking. So, okay, that's what journalists do wrong. Wrong. Yeah. Wrong. I heard it in the first place. It's a K. Yes. Wrong. Wrong. What are you... I'm doing it wrong. Oh. I said that. Wrong. So it was really, really striking. So, okay, that's what journalists do wrong. How can we do things right? Right. I mean... Oh, man. This is NPR. I mean, if this was a podcast, I'd throw it out of the index. That's so bad. I said that. So it was really, really striking. So, okay, that's what journalists do wrong. How can we do things right? Wrong. The first, of course, is you absolutely cannot go into arguably any interview unprepared, but especially with someone who has spent... I'm just stopping this right now. I'm just stopping it right now. This is so... This is the truth. You got two clips of the day. Oh, I'm on a roll. I mean, the fact that this is being broadcast on... Broadcast on NPR. And you're proud of it. Public radio. You know what this is? This is wrong. Arguably... It's wrong. ... unprepared, but especially with someone who has spent the better portion of the later part of their adult life promoting and advancing false claims about one thing specifically and is very, very, very trained in how to do that. The second is to be prepared to push back in real time. Then the third, I think, is sort of a broader existential question, which is ask yourself what the purpose of interviewing him is, like at its base, what you are hoping to convey to readers and listeners, the sort of unanswered questions that, you know, an interview might go towards answering. Well, let's talk about that. Fact-checking in real time. It's very hard. Yes, it is. Mr. Kennedy does something that is a kind of known rhetorical style that other folks do, too, which is called this sort of gish gallop is the term for it. Named after... Whoa! Gish gallop? Yeah, gish gallop. It's actually in Wikipedia. What is it? What is a gish gallop? A gish gallop is what I would say, if anybody actually does it, I don't think Kennedy does, but it's... Ben Shapiro would do it, where you just throw so much stuff at somebody, they can't take it, they're ducking you left and right, and they can't respond in time. And by the time they want to respond to something, you say something else. Oh, you mean like with facts? Yeah. But if you actually... Kennedy has a lot of facts, but they just assume everything he says is misinformation, or there's better facts, or... Let me read the exact definition. The gish gallop, or gish gallop, which I like better, is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments, also known as facts, with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality. The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugene Scott, who named it after American creationist, Dwayne Gish, and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging scientific fact of evolution. So, don't throw too many facts at me, because then you're gish galloping. A kind of known rhetorical style that other folks do, too, which is called this sort of gish gallop, is the term for it. Named after Dwayne Gish, a creationist. Right, so the idea that... A creationist! Gish gallop is that you are making claim upon claim... Oh, a heathen! I'm sorry. A heathen who believes in God. Oh, no! Gish gallop is the term for it. Named after Dwayne Gish, a creationist. Right, so the idea that gish gallop is that you are making claim upon claim upon claim, sort of bad argument after bad argument, very, very, very quickly, so quickly that it is hard for the person that you are speaking to to sort of respond to all of those claims effectively and in real time. Oh, what a horrible, what a horrible trick! I can't believe Bobby the Q is using the gish gallop trick! That's, I mean, that's just, I mean, even Trump can't do that! No, Trump can't. Wow, this is, oh, man. So this is to demean him further. And, by the way, it's always associative. You want to associate people with creationists. Yeah, yeah. Because that makes you nuts. By the way, this whole sequence of clips, this is like I had a T-bone steak, a tomahawk steak, and then afterwards you came out and said, would you like some tiramisu with that? I mean, this is so good! I'm just, I love this! This is the best ever! Ever! My word. One thing that is sort of recommended for responding specifically to gish gallops is picking out one claim and focusing in on it. Whether it's the most ridiculous, the most dangerous, the one that has been debunked the longest, you can pick a single claim and go from there. Debunking a single claim goes a long way to sort of illuminating the larger false premises on which some of these claims lie. Right. A lot of these pointers deal with TV interviews. I work for a television company, but I prefer print, because then you do have more control over the outcome. I'm actually reminded of the Randolini's Law, which is this internet adage that says the amount of energy needed to refute bulls**t is an order of magnitude bigger than is needed to produce it. And in print, I can contextualize quotes more easily, I can take the time to consult experts and fact check. Do you think print journalists have it a little easier here, and have they been doing a better job with him? And I'm also thinking that with presidential candidates, TV coverage is such a big part of it. Oh, I'm sorry. Does she mean like something the Rolling Stone would write when they say the QAnon tinge thriller about child trafficking is designed to appeal to the conscience of a conspiracy adult boomer? Is that contextualizing that you're looking for, Becky? Nice. In print? Wow. So, but you know, unfortunately, after so much television... I really believe that this is the appropriate mechanism for covering claims like this that often require not just a lot of explanation, but a lot of links to other sources. You know, I really believe in providing links to scientific studies, position papers, good, strong context that can lead people to understand better the claims that he's making. It is so hard to do that in a two-minute TV hit. Even in a longer sit-down interview, it can be just incredibly, incredibly difficult. What have you learned from your experience reporting on conspiracy theorists? Is there anything that you've done that you wouldn't repeat? In terms of things that I have done that I would no longer do, I would be less flippant about their ability to affect politics. I went on this cruise for conspiracy theorists in 2016, and I went in with a sort of lighthearted attitude, thinking that this was going to be a fun, kooky story, and almost immediately was really checked, really sobered by what I saw and what was going on. Andrew Wakefield, who is kind of the father of the modern anti-vaccine movement, was on that boat. People promoting conspiracy theories about the financial system that put themselves and others, quite literally, in prison. I think the one thing I would never do is discount the ways that conspiracy theories can shape our politics, shape our national conversation, and decimate people's lives. There's no conspiracy. That's why they ended up in prison, first of all. Why did I not get invited on this cruise? Yeah. This is upsetting. What cruise was this? I don't know. I'll ask McGuinn. He would know. This is... This is... This is ronk. Was that the last of that? I think that was the last. Unfortunately. But I do have a sub-clip, a little minor little clip. Oh, thank goodness. I need more. I need more. Just a three-second wrap-up of the whole thing. This is like... They kept talking about that, and maybe a different person. This is the RFK accusation clip, and this is what summarizes it for me. Beliefs are extreme, or his beliefs are often false and misleading. Extreme. Beliefs are extreme. Or. Or false. Or misleading. Beliefs are extreme, or his beliefs are often false and misleading. Misleading beliefs. You're misleading me with your crazy beliefs, man. His beliefs are misleading. Wow. Think about that sentence. Yeah. You have beliefs. Yes, I do. Who are you misleading with your beliefs? Dumb dipshits like this. You can only be misleading yourself. It's your beliefs. It's not your comments, or it's not what you say. I don't know. I mean, this was a hit piece from the get-go. They made him. I mean, they're trying to make it. It's worse than they ever did with Trump. Yeah. I think. And I think they're going to continue this attack. And the problem is, they threw out the pieces. There's more to it. Threw out the entire thing. They did not refute one single thing. No, because they were being gish gashed. There's no refutation of anything he said. No, well, of course not. It's like the Ivermectin stuff. There's so much documentation for Ivermectin. It's horse paste. Gish gash, exactly. Gish gashers. That's what I'm calling these women. Probably not very nice, but there you go. Holy crap. I don't think I can come back from that. I can't top it. I could just give you some piece of information that I'm sure is misinformation, disinformation. It can't be true, but no, no, I can't. I can't. I can't. That's nothing. I got nothing. I'm going to end the show. I think it's good. This is it. We're good to go. That was unbelievable. Good job. Hey, if you wonder why they call it the best podcast in the universe, you just heard why. No doubt about it.