I understand this is supposed to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and it is meant to be entertaining...
But I am just so sick of this kind of "reporting." It is simply a means to dump on ordinary Americans, make them look ignorant, and call them "conspiracy theorists" while giving side glances to the camera. It is smug, it is condescending, and it is why independents are sick of Democratic Party.
I thought the Free Press was better than this and actually cared about truth. I hope I'm not wrong.
This clip was disappointing and not what I expect from The Free Press. It seems like Ben was looking for people to say crazy things and he got what he was looking for-- just like the Legacy Media. In my experience, very smart and thinking people are latching onto RFK because he is highly educated and thoughtful.
this conveys nothing about the Kennedy-Shanahan policies and platform but a lot about Ben. I wouldn’t vote for them, but what is in this interview to help a voter decide?
"How do you know who to trust?" The interviewer asks...
That's easy. Never trust the people who tell you boys are girls and women can be men. Never trust race-hustlers, well-heeled Marxists or "democratic socialists"... never trust people who tell you that climate change is the only thing that matters and that there is something which "the entire planet" must do...
Never trust the left. Never.
Imagine if the American people had as much skepticism about Barack Obama when that malignant narcissist burst onto the scene...
Too many people do not understand the difference between science and religion.
Almost 20 years ago, many people looked at Hurricane Katrina and saw that as proof that their god or gods wanted to punish wickedness. Today, many people would look at the same natural phenomenon and see that as proof that CO2 levels control the weather.
The difference is that with Katrina, the media practiced journalism and dismissed the crazy claims. No one seriously tried to introduce the topic in the schools. Today, the CO2 religion is actively practiced by the media and by the people we trust to educate our children.
Not that long ago, some states began requiring the inclusion of "intelligent design" in the classroom. Finally, in 1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard), that was put to rest. But this current movement is far more dangerous because the schools are so strongly behind it. And the ACLU, which took the science side of the argument in the '80s, is firmly behind the religion side today. The relevant court cases focus more on whether the First Amendment is "hamstringing" than anything related to science at all.
It's great that RFK sometimes challenges the religion now openly practiced in the media and by our government. However, it seems he only wants to play his own religious games. His choice of VP signals that he's not serious about reforming anything.
I agree with you, but I think it is incomplete. Never trust the right either. I've seen lies in "right wing" publications as well. And dishonest takes in anti-vax materiels. What I tend to trust in when a "left wing" group says something against their bias, and when a right wing group says something against their bias. Mostly, though, if someone writes that someone said something outrageous, I look up other takes, or a video, to get a fuller picture. Or if they say the new law says X, I look up that law. Or if Elected Representative said X, and I want a fuller picture, I will call the ER office. Painstaking, but really, liars abound. We live in a silly, degraded culture and it isn't confined to one side of the aisle, unfortunately.
Institutional and cultural power is primarily on the left...
To paraphrase Chiang Kai-Shek... Conservative lies are a disease of the skin, but leftism is a disease of the heart. Only one of these diseases actually kills...
Liars lose the respect of people who value honesty, and weaken support for their cause, whatever "side" they represent. Anyway, I'm not convinced the powerful are genuinely "left," whatever that means. Wealth sides with wealth, but these days they like to pretend to care about the downtrodden.
Send Ben out asking the same questions of Biden supporters and Trump supporters. They can also be made to look like fools. This comes-off to me as simply a political hit job and really not worthy of The Free Press.
I've witnessed RFK publicly explain how black rock is absorbing Ukraine, as well as display poise and intelligence in the face of hostilities. I'll vote for him most likely.
I’ve personally done some very diligent research into this as my friends husband came to me with this book and so many of those footnotes and sources and “peer reviewed studies” have been debunked, fully retracted studies or the authors of the studies have publicly stated RFK is using their dating misleadingly. This is important, just because someone has footnotes and links studies doesn’t mean those footnotes and studies have held up. He’s more slippery than you think. He knowingly uses bad information or restricted studies not expecting the average person to follow the whole trail. This is why he drives so many journalists crazy.
Notoriety. Being correct, being righteous. Only he can save the people. Confirmation bias for what he’s already convinced himself is correct, like the vaccine preservative autism link. RFK famously and rightfully fought for the environment and against chemicals in our water, and I think he’s been looking the rest of his life for more big wins like that. Hes not inherently a bad person but he is a flawed character with misguided beliefs and it seems like he engages in some seriously dubious data presentation to convince his audience of his arguments. A example of something like this would be : The doctor who discovered the big link between thalidomide and birth defects, William McBride, spent the rest of his career chasing other medications he hoped were doing damage but was proved wrong time and time again. You can by start looking up the names of some of the studies he presents and find that they’ve been retracted or heavily criticized for their sample size - like the one about homeschooled children who aren’t vaccinated getting sick less. Sure, there’s correlation. But it used an extremely small sample size and self reporting. other aspects not being accounted - less exposure to other kids so less exposure to virus and bacteria in general, parents who homeschool are less likely to take a kid to the doctor for more minor colds and rely on homeopathic treatment, parents who homeschool would be more inclined to be biased in general against medicine and reporting would be influenced by that… the list goes on. My point is these things are so nuanced and he tends to present all his information as declaring victory for his beliefs and assumptions which on the whole are widely condemned by those who actually research them, not just policy makers with political interests or companies who stand to make profit.
There's actually something interesting to be said about why people believe the things that they believe. This clip chose not to engage this fascinating and deep topic. As other commentators here have observed, nothing these people said is crazier than what our mainstream institutions say and require us to respect in order to keep our jobs. One man on the street actually considered more than one definition of the word "immigrant". He makes more sense than a certain justice on the Supreme Court.
This was a really unfunny and incurious video with the punchline that we should... trust the experts?! ... who have themselves back-tracked on every major claim they pushed on us these past 4 years? Bizarre choice for FP to feature. There's one candidate in the presidential race who can actually back every assertion he makes with footnotes, has won lawsuit after lawsuit, written book after book. But instead of looking at any of that, yes, Ben, rely on the NY Times' take on him as your baseline truth, then seek out people to mock for not falling for the NYT party line.
I believe RFK because he is the only candidate who speaks about the problems that effect my life and the lives of the vast majority of Americans.
We do have a chronic disease epidemic that the pharmaceutical companies profit from. We do have a military industrial complex that incentivizes politicians to go to war instead of entering peace talks. Much of our drinking water is polluted, our food is toxic, and the soils that that food is grown on are being degraded year after year by the practices of big ag. On top of all of this our most important right, that of free speech, is being censured so that we cannot even have these important conversations without being called conspiracy theorists.
I am a New Mexico rancher with a deep love for this country, and I will be proud to vote for RFK in November.
Well said, Matthew. Those are the reasons I'll be voting for him too.
If some of the folks reading this want a little more information regarding RFKjr I recommend listening to his podcasts or, if you have time, listen to his Joe Rogan podcast. You'll hear Bobby answer questions without being censored.
Hey, the google search link in response to ivermectin that is shown on the video is from 2021. There are recent articles that if shared in the video may be able to provide a better light on the RFK supporters side of the story. The FDA hasn't approved ivermectin for covid but the FDA agreed to remove the ivermectin horse tweet due to settling outside of court with doctors who sued the FDA in regards to the use of ivermectin. If you are still reading, go to ChatGPT and ask about ivermectin, ask if it is harmless, if the discoverers received a nobel prize, how many times it has been administered. What it seems the FDA was doing was that the vaccines were emergency authorized and if a known medication or treatment already existed, the vaccines would not be eligible for the emergency authorization. In other words, ivermectin was diminished in benefit of the vaccines. It is curious why a mostly harmless, cheap, known drug was diminished for something that is none of those things.
I like Ben Kawaller's man-on-the-street approach. This is very funny, and like all pseudo-satire offers us a glimpse into what people think. However, I will take issue, serious issue, with two things. He asks a young boy about who to trust. Here's how we know. The side that calls for censorship is lying. Who is this? Right now it's the Left - the Democratic Party and its minions: big media, big Pharma, the Swamp. If they are truthful, they'd allow, even welcome debate, but they suppress it. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine? Yes they work I'm proof of it. In addition, Ben uses Google to search the answer. Duh! Read my previous statement. Who's been behind the suppression of medical information? Google is one of the worst offenders - it promotes more misinformation and promotes more undocumented attacks on its opponents that perhaps any entity in American history. If you like RFK, jr., vote for him. I won't. I respect much about him, but I think he's still a bit of a kook. He's not a kook about everything. He's been a consistent support of open debate, challenging the regime's narrative and standing up for his sincere beliefs. Kook or not, this is pretty good.
Why not speak about what Kennedy has actually said about vaccines? "Anti-vaccine" is not a monolithic category, and although I haven't heard everything Kennedy has said about vaccines, what I have heard is not a unilateral "all vaccines are bad" but something more like "it depends on which vaccine you're talking about." I agree with others here that this seems like a velveted hit job.
His website the children’s health defense fund spreads incredibly bad vaccine information - also conspiracies about everything from 5G to food additives. It’s not helpful.
The Ben series are not in keeping with TFP. Every time I see his material it feels as though he is mocking the citizens he interviews. It might as well be "The View"
The partial heritability of IQ is well-established in the literature. Estimates range from 0.45 to 0.8. See “Heritabliity of IQ” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ) in Wikipedia. Quote
“Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%, with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%. IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with the child's age and reaches a plateau at 14–16 years old, continuing at that level well into adulthood. However, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease are known to have lifelong deleterious effects.”
The (alleged) link between vaccines and autism isn’t quite so clear. Some of the specific links (MMR, Thimerosal) have been debunked. However, the broader issue still exists. The number of vaccinations of children has soared since WWII (from 3 to 17). Could vaccinations have some cumulative adverse impact? Hard to prove either way. For a completely different theory. There is a claim that Asians have brought a (otherwise harmless) virus to the US that triggers (in some people) Autism. This theory helps explain the allegedly high incidence of Autism in SV. For a completely different theory. There is a claim that the incidence of Autism has not increased, but it (Autism) is better diagnosed than it was.
Is any of this true?
The practical benefits of vaccines are easily overstated. Most of the reduction in morality occurred before vaccines and antibiotics were invented/used.
I understand this is supposed to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and it is meant to be entertaining...
But I am just so sick of this kind of "reporting." It is simply a means to dump on ordinary Americans, make them look ignorant, and call them "conspiracy theorists" while giving side glances to the camera. It is smug, it is condescending, and it is why independents are sick of Democratic Party.
I thought the Free Press was better than this and actually cared about truth. I hope I'm not wrong.
I agree with everything you said. It is inappropriate to treat people like this. Respect is a foundational value in my book.
Agree.
You nailed it. I stepped up to interview (black shirt) and regret it. See my comment above.
This clip was disappointing and not what I expect from The Free Press. It seems like Ben was looking for people to say crazy things and he got what he was looking for-- just like the Legacy Media. In my experience, very smart and thinking people are latching onto RFK because he is highly educated and thoughtful.
this conveys nothing about the Kennedy-Shanahan policies and platform but a lot about Ben. I wouldn’t vote for them, but what is in this interview to help a voter decide?
According to the FP, normal people either vote for Biden or Trump, Kennedy is only for loonies.
Right. Loonies like the type of independent thinkers that read the FP. 🙄
"How do you know who to trust?" The interviewer asks...
That's easy. Never trust the people who tell you boys are girls and women can be men. Never trust race-hustlers, well-heeled Marxists or "democratic socialists"... never trust people who tell you that climate change is the only thing that matters and that there is something which "the entire planet" must do...
Never trust the left. Never.
Imagine if the American people had as much skepticism about Barack Obama when that malignant narcissist burst onto the scene...
Too many people do not understand the difference between science and religion.
Almost 20 years ago, many people looked at Hurricane Katrina and saw that as proof that their god or gods wanted to punish wickedness. Today, many people would look at the same natural phenomenon and see that as proof that CO2 levels control the weather.
The difference is that with Katrina, the media practiced journalism and dismissed the crazy claims. No one seriously tried to introduce the topic in the schools. Today, the CO2 religion is actively practiced by the media and by the people we trust to educate our children.
Not that long ago, some states began requiring the inclusion of "intelligent design" in the classroom. Finally, in 1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard), that was put to rest. But this current movement is far more dangerous because the schools are so strongly behind it. And the ACLU, which took the science side of the argument in the '80s, is firmly behind the religion side today. The relevant court cases focus more on whether the First Amendment is "hamstringing" than anything related to science at all.
It's great that RFK sometimes challenges the religion now openly practiced in the media and by our government. However, it seems he only wants to play his own religious games. His choice of VP signals that he's not serious about reforming anything.
I agree with you, but I think it is incomplete. Never trust the right either. I've seen lies in "right wing" publications as well. And dishonest takes in anti-vax materiels. What I tend to trust in when a "left wing" group says something against their bias, and when a right wing group says something against their bias. Mostly, though, if someone writes that someone said something outrageous, I look up other takes, or a video, to get a fuller picture. Or if they say the new law says X, I look up that law. Or if Elected Representative said X, and I want a fuller picture, I will call the ER office. Painstaking, but really, liars abound. We live in a silly, degraded culture and it isn't confined to one side of the aisle, unfortunately.
Institutional and cultural power is primarily on the left...
To paraphrase Chiang Kai-Shek... Conservative lies are a disease of the skin, but leftism is a disease of the heart. Only one of these diseases actually kills...
Liars lose the respect of people who value honesty, and weaken support for their cause, whatever "side" they represent. Anyway, I'm not convinced the powerful are genuinely "left," whatever that means. Wealth sides with wealth, but these days they like to pretend to care about the downtrodden.
"Never trust the left. Never."
I trust them....to be wrong.
Send Ben out asking the same questions of Biden supporters and Trump supporters. They can also be made to look like fools. This comes-off to me as simply a political hit job and really not worthy of The Free Press.
Completely agree, this is beneath what I thought the Free Press stood for
I would LOVE a piece about why Biden supporters think as they do.
Just dump Ben
Dead on. This is a total fail from the FP.
It’s early, let’s give him a chance to ask a democrat some leading questions
I've witnessed RFK publicly explain how black rock is absorbing Ukraine, as well as display poise and intelligence in the face of hostilities. I'll vote for him most likely.
Read RFK Jr.'s book "The Real Fauci". Heavily footnoted and sourced. Makes one reconsider what one has been told by the "authorities" re Covid.
Not to mention the Wuhan Coverup, which, unbelievably, is even more shocking!
I’ve personally done some very diligent research into this as my friends husband came to me with this book and so many of those footnotes and sources and “peer reviewed studies” have been debunked, fully retracted studies or the authors of the studies have publicly stated RFK is using their dating misleadingly. This is important, just because someone has footnotes and links studies doesn’t mean those footnotes and studies have held up. He’s more slippery than you think. He knowingly uses bad information or restricted studies not expecting the average person to follow the whole trail. This is why he drives so many journalists crazy.
Anna, you say he's more slippery than you think. What do you think his motivations are for writing that book that would make him slippery?
I've read the book, but have not done the deeper dive as you state.
Notoriety. Being correct, being righteous. Only he can save the people. Confirmation bias for what he’s already convinced himself is correct, like the vaccine preservative autism link. RFK famously and rightfully fought for the environment and against chemicals in our water, and I think he’s been looking the rest of his life for more big wins like that. Hes not inherently a bad person but he is a flawed character with misguided beliefs and it seems like he engages in some seriously dubious data presentation to convince his audience of his arguments. A example of something like this would be : The doctor who discovered the big link between thalidomide and birth defects, William McBride, spent the rest of his career chasing other medications he hoped were doing damage but was proved wrong time and time again. You can by start looking up the names of some of the studies he presents and find that they’ve been retracted or heavily criticized for their sample size - like the one about homeschooled children who aren’t vaccinated getting sick less. Sure, there’s correlation. But it used an extremely small sample size and self reporting. other aspects not being accounted - less exposure to other kids so less exposure to virus and bacteria in general, parents who homeschool are less likely to take a kid to the doctor for more minor colds and rely on homeopathic treatment, parents who homeschool would be more inclined to be biased in general against medicine and reporting would be influenced by that… the list goes on. My point is these things are so nuanced and he tends to present all his information as declaring victory for his beliefs and assumptions which on the whole are widely condemned by those who actually research them, not just policy makers with political interests or companies who stand to make profit.
I have heard him say that they were a couple of studies that "he's been corrected on". That if something he cited is incorrect he has acknowledged it.
Kind of like Facebook. And Kerry.
Kind of like Fauci.
There's actually something interesting to be said about why people believe the things that they believe. This clip chose not to engage this fascinating and deep topic. As other commentators here have observed, nothing these people said is crazier than what our mainstream institutions say and require us to respect in order to keep our jobs. One man on the street actually considered more than one definition of the word "immigrant". He makes more sense than a certain justice on the Supreme Court.
This was a really unfunny and incurious video with the punchline that we should... trust the experts?! ... who have themselves back-tracked on every major claim they pushed on us these past 4 years? Bizarre choice for FP to feature. There's one candidate in the presidential race who can actually back every assertion he makes with footnotes, has won lawsuit after lawsuit, written book after book. But instead of looking at any of that, yes, Ben, rely on the NY Times' take on him as your baseline truth, then seek out people to mock for not falling for the NYT party line.
I believe RFK because he is the only candidate who speaks about the problems that effect my life and the lives of the vast majority of Americans.
We do have a chronic disease epidemic that the pharmaceutical companies profit from. We do have a military industrial complex that incentivizes politicians to go to war instead of entering peace talks. Much of our drinking water is polluted, our food is toxic, and the soils that that food is grown on are being degraded year after year by the practices of big ag. On top of all of this our most important right, that of free speech, is being censured so that we cannot even have these important conversations without being called conspiracy theorists.
I am a New Mexico rancher with a deep love for this country, and I will be proud to vote for RFK in November.
Well said, Matthew. Those are the reasons I'll be voting for him too.
If some of the folks reading this want a little more information regarding RFKjr I recommend listening to his podcasts or, if you have time, listen to his Joe Rogan podcast. You'll hear Bobby answer questions without being censored.
Hey, the google search link in response to ivermectin that is shown on the video is from 2021. There are recent articles that if shared in the video may be able to provide a better light on the RFK supporters side of the story. The FDA hasn't approved ivermectin for covid but the FDA agreed to remove the ivermectin horse tweet due to settling outside of court with doctors who sued the FDA in regards to the use of ivermectin. If you are still reading, go to ChatGPT and ask about ivermectin, ask if it is harmless, if the discoverers received a nobel prize, how many times it has been administered. What it seems the FDA was doing was that the vaccines were emergency authorized and if a known medication or treatment already existed, the vaccines would not be eligible for the emergency authorization. In other words, ivermectin was diminished in benefit of the vaccines. It is curious why a mostly harmless, cheap, known drug was diminished for something that is none of those things.
I like Ben Kawaller's man-on-the-street approach. This is very funny, and like all pseudo-satire offers us a glimpse into what people think. However, I will take issue, serious issue, with two things. He asks a young boy about who to trust. Here's how we know. The side that calls for censorship is lying. Who is this? Right now it's the Left - the Democratic Party and its minions: big media, big Pharma, the Swamp. If they are truthful, they'd allow, even welcome debate, but they suppress it. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine? Yes they work I'm proof of it. In addition, Ben uses Google to search the answer. Duh! Read my previous statement. Who's been behind the suppression of medical information? Google is one of the worst offenders - it promotes more misinformation and promotes more undocumented attacks on its opponents that perhaps any entity in American history. If you like RFK, jr., vote for him. I won't. I respect much about him, but I think he's still a bit of a kook. He's not a kook about everything. He's been a consistent support of open debate, challenging the regime's narrative and standing up for his sincere beliefs. Kook or not, this is pretty good.
Why not speak about what Kennedy has actually said about vaccines? "Anti-vaccine" is not a monolithic category, and although I haven't heard everything Kennedy has said about vaccines, what I have heard is not a unilateral "all vaccines are bad" but something more like "it depends on which vaccine you're talking about." I agree with others here that this seems like a velveted hit job.
His website the children’s health defense fund spreads incredibly bad vaccine information - also conspiracies about everything from 5G to food additives. It’s not helpful.
As a canadian who can’t vote for anyone in your election, I don’t agree with RFK on everything but at least he talks and debates real issues.
If he is at least willing to debate and to allow debate, then he can be convinced about issues he may be wrong on.
Seems like gold to me
The Ben series are not in keeping with TFP. Every time I see his material it feels as though he is mocking the citizens he interviews. It might as well be "The View"
The partial heritability of IQ is well-established in the literature. Estimates range from 0.45 to 0.8. See “Heritabliity of IQ” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ) in Wikipedia. Quote
“Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%, with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%. IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with the child's age and reaches a plateau at 14–16 years old, continuing at that level well into adulthood. However, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease are known to have lifelong deleterious effects.”
The (alleged) link between vaccines and autism isn’t quite so clear. Some of the specific links (MMR, Thimerosal) have been debunked. However, the broader issue still exists. The number of vaccinations of children has soared since WWII (from 3 to 17). Could vaccinations have some cumulative adverse impact? Hard to prove either way. For a completely different theory. There is a claim that Asians have brought a (otherwise harmless) virus to the US that triggers (in some people) Autism. This theory helps explain the allegedly high incidence of Autism in SV. For a completely different theory. There is a claim that the incidence of Autism has not increased, but it (Autism) is better diagnosed than it was.
Is any of this true?
The practical benefits of vaccines are easily overstated. Most of the reduction in morality occurred before vaccines and antibiotics were invented/used.
Correction .. 73 vaccines as of 2024
SV? What's that?
SV is short for 'Silicon Valley' (in this context)
Wow, just wow.