WHEN people hear I teach journalism, I’m often asked what I think about the media coverage of X issue or how I would cover X issue if I was a journalist. The questions usually reflect the person’s frustration with the media. Last week, I was asked how I would cover Democratic candidate Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Jr’s presidential bid. Kennedy is widely accused of spreading ‘lies’ — I use quotes because I don’t think it’s always possible to prove someone is willfully lying.
Should media organisations give their platform to someone who, according to the Centre for Counting Digital Hate named RFK as the second most prolific poster of anti-vaccine information online? There is a lot of focus on Kennedy’s views on vaccines and he is routinely described as an anti-vaxxer, though he claims he is asking for more studies on vaccines.
I understand the dilemma with Kennedy. He is, after all, American royalty with that surname; I doubt he’d garner the kind of attention if he was someone else. Kennedy’s views are controversial: he is against big pharma, blames 5G for a host of ailments, says Wi-Fi causes “leaky brain”, HIV may not cause AIDS, suggests links between antidepressants and the rise in mass school shootings, and claims chemicals in water may cause children to become transgender. These are some of the wilder theories he has spoken about — but it’s important to say they are finding resonance across the political divide.
Kennedy has the support of venture capitalists, tech bros in Silicon Valley — including the former and present owners of Twitter — and has earned Donald Trump’s praise too. Although he pitches himself as an outsider — who is routinely censored for his views — he has received immense media coverage with profiles in all leading publications. He has appeared on nearly all the highly watched podcasts, save Sam Harris’ who said he won’t give him the platform to air his misinformation. It was Harris’ podcast that had my lunchmate posing the question on what I would do as a journalist.
There’s a way to report on people without amplifying or ignoring them.
I think the important distinction to make here is that Harris and the other podcast bros are not journalists. This doesn’t diminish their power to engage with their guests, or ask difficult questions, or influence voters, but they’re not following the same rules as journalists. Journalists do their due diligence and ask tough questions, with the goal being to inform the public, not think about their own ratings or brand. I know this is hard to believe, given how polarised the media and society is, even in Pakistan, but the trust deficit has been caused because journalists veered from these guidelines. They can bring audiences back by ensuring fair and balanced coverage of leaders and fighting attempts to censor them as that is a huge disservice to the public’s right to information.
Labelling Kennedy a loon or dangerous or both only shows the media has learned nothing from covering Trump — who, if you remember, was ridiculed from the day he announced his candidacy. There is a way to report on RFK without amplifying him and always adding context and data to let readers make their own decisions.
RFK cannot be ignored, but should he get the oxygen the media feels it needs to get ratings? Because that is essentially what this comes down to: profitability vs public interest. Media outlets look at elections through the lens of a horse race, ie, who will win. Except that in their coverage of a candidate, they end up creating an electable. RFK garners more attention than the other contender, Marianne Williamson, who was once described as Oprah’s spiritual adviser. Why isn’t every move of hers given the same space?
I see the appeal in RFK because he’s saying things others do not: anti-corporates, anti-elite capture in the political system, antiwar, anti-CIA, whom he blames for the murder of his father and uncle. He does not have answers to the kind of policies he’ll create, and lacks support from his party, and many of his family members, including siblings, have endorsed Joe Biden. Much of the RFK amplification machine is coming from the right-wing media that wants an election between Trump and RFK. The media shouldn’t fall into this trap. There is a way to report on people without amplifying or ignoring them.
De-platforming and/or censorship does not work.
It was embarrassing to watch TV channels in Pakistan blur out the PTI leader’s face in his meeting with the IMF delegation. What is the purpose of this ridiculous ban? Why are audiences treated with such little regard? I have full faith in the media’s ability to do its job of reporting fairly on all leaders and debunking their nonsense. Let them do their jobs, please.
The writer researches newsroom culture in Pakistan.
Twitter: @LedeingLady
Published in Dawn, July 16th, 2023
