The Atlantic, a publication that has been under fire for its perceived left-leaning bias, recently released a cover photo that portrays Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in a rather unflattering light.
The image, which some critics argue is a deliberate attempt to depict Kennedy as a religious fanatic, has sparked controversy.
The choice of photo, however, is not within Kennedy's control. It is the prerogative of the publication, in this case, The Atlantic, to select the image that they believe best represents the subject. The decision to use this particular photo, however, raises questions about the publication's objectivity and fairness.
From the outset, it appears that the publication has skewed the narrative against Kennedy, casting doubt on their own convictions.
This is not dissimilar to a boxer resorting to underhanded tactics, such as hitting below the belt or rabbit punching, due to a lack of confidence in their own abilities. Furthermore, it is worth noting that The Atlantic has previously equated the rosary, a symbol of faith for many, to an "assault weapon." This is indicative of a broader trend within legacy media to frame debates in favor of the left.
The article accompanying the controversial cover photo is as expected. It features an interview with Paul Offit, a pediatrician and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Offit, a vocal critic of Kennedy's views on vaccines, was quoted as saying, "Kennedy is a 'liar' and a 'terrible human being.' He thinks the medical journals are in the pocket of the industry, he thinks that the government is in the pocket of the industry, he thinks Im in the pocket of industry, and hes wrong. If he has data showing hes right, then fucking publish it. He cant, because he doesnt have those data."
According to Breitbart, it is not Kennedy or President Trump who have eroded public trust in scientific experts. Instead, they argue that the experts themselves are to blame for the loss of faith in their credibility. They suggest that the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic by organizations such as the CDC, WHO, and HHS has led to a radical shift in public opinion.
Many people had faith in these institutions until they were advised to take drastic measures such as shutting down the economy, quarantining the healthy, and implementing social distancing and mask-wearing protocols. These measures were seen by some as overreactions, leading to skepticism towards the advice given by these institutions.
The article argues that the handling of the pandemic was politically motivated, aimed at ensuring President Trump's defeat in the 2020 elections. It suggests that Kennedy, despite his eccentricities, did not support the lockdown measures and questioned the need for such drastic action, particularly when it was clear that the virus primarily affected those with pre-existing health conditions.
Unlike the so-called "experts," Kennedy is not advocating for any particular course of action. He is not calling for a ban on vaccines or mandatory mask-wearing. Instead, he is asking questions and seeking answers from a pharmaceutical and medical industry that has been accused of being dishonest, partisan, and power-hungry during the pandemic.
The article concludes by suggesting that America's scientific community is driven by greed and sociopathy, while individuals like Kennedy and Trump have paid a significant price for questioning the science. They have lost their establishment status and faced criticism from their own families for their skepticism.
This, the article argues, is the essence of scientific inquiry: questioning the established norms and seeking the truth.
Login