It seems clear that most parents of autistic children in America love the children and see great value in the children’s activities and thoughts. It also seems clear that most of these parents also would prefer that their children could live free from the effects of autism and that a way is found to prevent autism from developing in other children.
That is commonsensical.
But, when people in the media are looking for any and every basis to tar Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his presidential campaign, his dedication to the ordinarily perceived of as admirable goal of seeking to reduce the prevalence of autism is twisted by opponents into a vicious perspective.
MSNBC columnist Eric Garcia wrote in Sunday editorial focused on Kennedy that “the crux of his baseless claim that vaccines cause autism is the ugly message that being autistic is bad.”
Notice the language Garcia uses. He does not write that Kennedy says people with autism are bad people. Yet, it is just that misreading that would make the “ugly message” designation make any sense. What we have here is nonsense that many readers will fix in their minds into a condemnation of Kennedy for something the author did not state and offered no evidence to support.
Working to prevent autism is an activity rooted in the promotion of human happiness and health. If it is condemnable as an “ugly message,” it would seem that individuals working to prevent cancer, heart attacks, Alzheimer’s, and other serious medical problems should be similarly condemned.
Kennedy is a candidate for president, so it is right that he be criticized. But, media people, can you at least keep the criticism rational and not rooted in deception?
