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.
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?
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.
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).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
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?
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.
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).