I don’t want to place this in “politics” because I’m more expressing an opinion on the use of the term ‘bonkers’ in a headline that is supposed to be from an unbiased news agency.
My opinion is that the headline should be reworked to be less slanted, or clearly marked as an editorial.
It’s in quotes, which is headline-speak for saying they’re quoting someone who will be identified in the article.
I can’t say if that’s enough, but that is the rationale.
They are directly quoting the subject of the accusations which seems reasonable:
Avlon, who left the Daily Beast six years ago and is now running for Congress in New York as a Democrat, similarly called the articles “bonkers.”
Hell I’d have gone with the other individual quoted:
Moulitsas told ABC News that Russell’s articles are “utter horse crap” and “hilariously wrong.”
The article is reporting, not just on the theory that he is promoting, but on what others are saying about it. Thus, the headline is an accurate reflection of the contents of the article. (It is significant that, as others have noted, “bonkers” is in quotes.)
I think mainstream media has been giving dangerous idiots like RFK Jr. consequence free advertising for far too long.
His ridiculous ideas are no more worthy of discussion than the drunk homeless guy who told me that swinging your arms when you walk causes cancer. I don’t see THAT guy quoted in the paper, and if he was, it would be after they talked about where he was institutionalized for his own safety.
They referred to a theory as bonkers. A theory that is absolutely bonkers.
Ben Bradlee: Well, I’d cut the words “batshit crazy” change it to “bonkers” and print it.
Carl Bernstein: Why?
Ben Bradlee: This is a family newspaper.
I do think it crosses the line into editorializing.
And I hate RFK Jr. The guy has said some reprehensible things about autistic people and has a running mate that’s trying to “cure” her daughter’s autism, so I’d like to boot this guy into the sun.
But I just want newspapers to at least pretend they’re trying to be objective. There’s no reason they have to reference the quote of someone in the article.
This is how news organizations including Fox et al. get away with telling their readers how to feel about something before they even get a chance to read everything in context.
Even if it’s a quote of someone, it still comes across as unprofessional, more like a tabloid than serious news. They could have used a headline like “RFK Jr. promotes sensationalist arguments on campaign trail”.
If that proposed headline isn’t quoting someone, then it’s editorializing in the news.
I do think there is an issue where the word “theory”, when unmarked, carries the connotation of a serious claim. “RFK pushes theory” suggests it ia a debatable claim
“Pushes claim” or “pushes accusation” would be better
It sure is. If the CIA were running major US press outlets, their stories would have better grammar and structure, and would be more coherent (if not more truthful). The CIA, unlike CNN.com or ABC.com, applies actual standards in their publications.
But the name recognition gives them clicks! And let’s be honest, RFk Jr. is actually a lot more interesting in a “Did he just say that?” sort of way than anything from the two main candidates. He may be completely ‘bonkers’ but he’s the most entertaining third party candidate since H. Ross Perot, and I’m sure that many news outlet are lapping this up since it is so hard to craft anything coming out of Trump’s mouth into a remotely coherent sentence fragment.
“Emits errant nonsense” would be an suitably accurate description and I feel that it would be legally defensible. It is one thing to ‘editorialize’ in reporting facts with purple prose, but another to report demonstrably wrong claims in a flat monotone that implies that they are at the same level of credibility as provable facts. Frankly, there have been a number of candidates and even elected officials whose baseless and often harmful claims really beg for some judicious editorializing.
Stranger
I think they were being quite restrained. They could well have called it “batshit crazy” and still not be editorializing. Sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade and not fall into “well some people might disagree” bullshit when it’s obviously insane.
News agencies are using far more provocative headlines these days in order to gain clicks. This one pushes the line into a gray area.
As others have said, it’s legitimate to quote criticism in a headline. Organizations ran into intense backlash for not rigorously reporting the lies and nonsense spewed by Trump and other right-wing candidates and burying the counterpoint under drab “fair” headlines.
What is fair? I think the modern consensus is that making the critique the point of the article and prominently running any statement that is being quoted right at the top of the article allows the reader to assess the criticism. Here, the quote with “bonkers” is buried a full 22 paragraphs into the article. I had to use a Ctrl-F to find it. Who is going to read that much? I’d rate that unprofessional.