When word started to spread this weekend that vaccine skeptic and Democratic Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had allegedly indicated during a private gathering that COVID-19 was designed to spare Ashkenazi Jews and people of Chinese ancestry, groups fighting antisemitism and sinophobia were quick to condemn Kennedy’s reported assertion.
[Kennedy reportedly told those in attendance: “Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.]
Absolutely disgusting and insane. The @nypost obtained video from a recent RFK Jr. event where he suggested COVID is a Chinese bioweapon “ethnically targeted” to “attack Caucasians and Black people” and to spare “Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese” people. He then falsely claimed the… pic.twitter.com/reTqaEc1aL
— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) July 15, 2023
Defending himself against what he characterized as a misinterpretation of his comments, Kennedy did two things.
First, he denied implying COVID’s “ethnic effect was deliberately engineered” and referenced a study about genetic susceptibility that he said provided the context for what he was discussing.
The second part of his defense strategy — perhaps more important to citizens contending with transparency concerns pertaining to public figures — is that Kennedy asserted that he had made his comments “during an off-the-record conversation.”
Kennedy even doubled down on the OFF-THE-RECORD claim (in all caps) in a separate tweet, claiming he was victimized by a reporter who reported what he’d said.
.@LevineJonathan exploited this OFF-THE-RECORD conversation to smear me by association with an outlandish conspiracy theory.
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 15, 2023
People had mixed reactions to Kennedy’s core defense of his allegedly prejudicial comments, with a number of commenters assuaged by the context he provided. “Well articulated clarification. Thank you.” wrote one Twitter respondent, a view commonly shared in the responses.
But fewer are satisfied with the notion that Kennedy deserved a pass because his comments were, he believed, made “off-the-record.”
RFK’s Twitter Coach: “OK Bobby, that was pretty good. Let’s try again, only this time don’t start your denial with ‘that was supposed to be off the record”.
— SnarkTank (@TheSnarkTank99) July 15, 2023
For numerous commenters, that “off-the-record” claim was a scary part of the controversy, especially terrifying to spooked voters who believe candidates routinely hold one set of beliefs in private while professing less idiosyncratic versions in public.
Whether something was said on- or off-the-record doesn't negate the content which was shared.
— Craig Rozniecki (@CraigRozniecki) July 15, 2023
In other words, there is a profound concern among the electorate that candidates routinely withhold their animating belief systems — keeping those off-the-record — so that voters are kept in the dark about what a public figure really thinks or believes.
(That there are really two sets of facts — public and private — is the chief force driving cynicism and the breakdown of confidence in America’s institutions.)
In 2023, with every person a potential reporter and the power of the media in the hands of everyone with a mobile device, is “off the record” still a relevant category when it comes to candidates for public office?
Many commenters believe it is now an unrealistic expectation from a candidate seeking powerful national office — that a controversial statement or belief they espouse should be left unexposed to the voting public. It’s a question stirred by RFK’s response.
According to Law Depot:
The term “off the record” doesn’t have a universally accepted definition; however, it’s generally understood that this term refers to a confidential conversation.
The phrase became commonplace in the 1930s when interview sources for news articles would be willing to talk but didn’t want journalists to quote them.
Unfortunately, an “off the record” agreement often doesn’t qualify as a legally binding contract because it lacks one or more of the elements that make up a valid contract.
Here is Kennedy’s rebuttal to the original charge:
The @nypost story is mistaken. I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews. I accurately pointed out — during an off-the-record conversation — that the U.S. and other governments are developing ethnically targeted bioweapons and that a 2021…
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 15, 2023
