First, the article doesn’t say where they got that quote from. There’s zero context - just random words in the middle of the text. It’s extremely low-quality journalism.
Second, please review the author’s articles - https://apnews.com/author/michelle-r-smith - she’s obsessed with RFK. There’s zero positive writing about anything. RFK wants the healthcare industry to be more transparent. He insists on more rigorous testing. These are common sense policy positions that deserve fair analysis. The lack of balanced reporting does a disservice to readers who deserve comprehensive coverage of important health policy debates.
> First, the article doesn’t say where they got that quote from. There’s zero context - just random words in the middle of the text. It’s extremely low-quality journalism.
Because it was widely reported many times since 2021 when he said it in a podcast. It's not lazy journalism; if anything, it seems you are just too lazy to research or corroborate before dismissing things.
He even fucking rants about 5G in this podcast, for a significant period of time. It's just ridiculous. It's non-ionizing radiation. Basic science, easily corroborated. Then he rants about Bill Gates for a couple minutes and tries to paint the EarthNow! project in a completely unfair light. Whether intentional or just ignorant, he's a kook and pushes baseless conspiracies while working with a party who is currently engaging in a literal well-documented conspiracy, Project 2025.
> she’s obsessed with RFK. There’s zero positive writing about anything
What a disingenuous take. Journalists are allowed to have focuses, and their job is not to appease you by making sure that for every 5 negative articles, there must be a positive one. That's not bias; But writing off a journalist for not producing articles that you like is literally bias.
> He insists on more rigorous testing. These are common sense policy positions that deserve fair analysis.
Dude, if that's all it was, we would all be behind him. Unfortunately, whether well-intentioned or not (and I do believe he has good intentions), he pushes a lot of harmful things alongside the less harmful things. Those more harmful things are what people have issue with.
> The lack of balanced reporting
Again, it's your own bias to assume that journalists must be compelled to occasionally paint people in a good light. Would you be saying the same thing about Hitler? "He does have some sensible ideas, why aren't we discussing those and giving him a chance?" Because he's fucking Hitler, and he's a bad person who needs to be taken out of power.
> deserve comprehensive coverage of important health policy debates
Now we are just totally strawmanning. Of course they deserve comprehensive coverage. That's why we have multiple journalism and news outlets and blogs. You can find your comprehensive coverage, from all angles, without demanding that any particular journalist compromise their values in order to appease yours.
Second, please review the author’s articles - https://apnews.com/author/michelle-r-smith - she’s obsessed with RFK. There’s zero positive writing about anything. RFK wants the healthcare industry to be more transparent. He insists on more rigorous testing. These are common sense policy positions that deserve fair analysis. The lack of balanced reporting does a disservice to readers who deserve comprehensive coverage of important health policy debates.