Recently, a writer who penned an opinion column for the Los Angeles Times expressed concern over the paper’s headline and editorial decisions regarding his piece warning against the confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Health and Human Services Secretary. The writer, Eric Reinhart, emphasized that his intention was not to promote Kennedy, but rather advocate for a populist approach to healthcare.
According to Reinhart, the paper’s billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, shared the article on social media with a headline that suggested a positive view towards Kennedy’s potential confirmation. Reinhart clarified that the headline and photo choice were made without his approval and misrepresented the intended message of his article.
In response to Soon-Shiong’s promotion of the piece, Reinhart took to social media to set the record straight, highlighting that his original title was “RFK Jr’s Wrecking Ball Won’t Fix Public Health.” He stressed that supporting Kennedy for the HHS position would lead to chaos and mass death, contrary to the public-systems building he advocated for in his op-ed.
The Los Angeles Times defended their editorial process, stating that authors have final approval over their op-ed pieces before publication. However, Reinhart expressed concerns over the changes made to his article, particularly the omission of his criticisms towards Kennedy and the ambiguous headline that could be interpreted as an endorsement.
Reinhart pointed out the owner’s known interference in editorial decisions at the newspaper, raising suspicions of deliberate manipulation in this case. Soon-Shiong publicly voiced his support for Kennedy, citing his concerns about toxins and cancer causes as reasons for backing the nominee.
Despite acknowledging that no contracts were violated during the publication process, Reinhart felt that the situation was not in line with the spirit of editing, especially given the timing of Kennedy’s confirmation hearing. He emphasized the critical importance of the decision to confirm an underqualified candidate for such a crucial position in public health.
As the debate over Kennedy’s confirmation continues, the incident serves as a reminder of the complexities and potential biases in editorial processes within media organizations.
