The New York Times stood by a Sunday story questioning RFK Jr.’s leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services after the secretary called the coverage “unfair, inimical and inaccurate.” Kennedy argued the paper selectively used employees and dismis
A New York Times report published in the spotlight over RFK Jr.’s time as Health and Human Services secretary quickly turned into a public sparring match—after the man at the center of it called the coverage “unfair, inimical and inaccurate.”
On Sunday, Sheryl Gay Stolberg published an article titled “Kennedy Shows Minimal Engagement With Vast Health Portfolio,” framing concerns about his efficacy and work ethic. On Wednesday, Kennedy took to X to answer.
“Your article exemplifies the biased reporting we have come to expect from you and NY Times. It was unfair, inimical and inaccurate,” he wrote. “All one needs to refute your argument is to glance at my publicly available calendar and to review my unprecedented list of accomplishments on a wide range of issues. all of which I drove. You evidently never undertook these foundational due diligences. Why let facts obscure a good story?”.
He then pushed further on the paper’s methods. saying the story relied on unnamed employees and that some of those people were no longer working at HHS. “In order to prove your preconceived case for my disengagement. you quote anonymous employees. some of whom I fired or who quit to avoid being fired. ” Kennedy continued. “You also deceptively quote HHS employees without identifying whether they were among those I fired. thereby depriving your readers of the opportunity to make an independent judgment about their credibility.”.
Kennedy described what he called “a widely accepted technique” in journalism—finding disgruntled people to build a pre-written narrative—and argued that the Times has crossed a line in how it handles facts. “This species of journalist will always be able to find disgruntled individuals among the 70. 000 employees of the Department from whom to cherry pick ‘facts’ to flesh out a preordained hit piece. ” he wrote. “All that is required for this brand of journalism is the ethical elasticity that you seem to have in spades. You had a preconceived thesis, and you set out to prove it. This is a widely accepted technique in journalism today. but I grew up in an era when it would not have been tolerated by the New York Times.”.
He also attacked the paper’s access to decision makers and its willingness to talk about what he called “topics that are important.” “There was a time that journalists were proud to be the fearless and uncompromising champions of truth. ” Kennedy wrote. “Standards have devolved and journalism is dead. The Times now employs propagandists. Your capitulation to partisanship further compounds your journalistic challenges; since we all are aware of your predictable bias. we at HHS are unwilling to talk to you about the topics that are important.”.
He added that the lack of access affects how the story is written. “The fact that you have minimal access to decision makers leaves you covering trivia and relying on your own capacity for invention.”
The Times, for its part, said it did try to reach Kennedy before publication. “The Times set out to examine Secretary Kennedy’s leadership and management style in light of numerous vacancies within the Department of Health and Human Services and concerns internally about his detachment from key issues and officials. ” the paper’s communications team wrote on X early Thursday morning.
The Times said Kennedy declined an interview request. “The secretary declined an interview request and did not address detailed questions before publication about his approach to running the department,” the statement continued.
It also laid out what it used to support the report. “This article is based on conversations with a dozen people who have worked directly with Mr. Kennedy during his tenure as secretary. We are confident in our reporting.”
Even as Kennedy insisted the calendar and his “unprecedented list of accomplishments” should have answered the story’s premise. the Times stood by its decision to publish after Kennedy did not engage with questions the paper says it asked. The standoff leaves the central issue unresolved for readers: whether the Times’ source-based reporting on his engagement and leadership tells the full story—or whether. as Kennedy argues. it is shaped by selectively chosen accounts and a lack of transparency about who those accounts belong to.
New York Times RFK Jr. Sheryl Gay Stolberg Health and Human Services X Secretary Kennedy journalism media controversy HHS leadership
NYT really needs to pick a lane.
Sounds like both sides are arguing about vibes. If the employees were “anonymous” then how are we supposed to know anything? Also wasn’t RFK just doing press anyway lol.
I don’t even get it, like if there’s a calendar then he should just post the whole thing and shut it down. But the article said “minimal engagement,” so maybe he was doing stuff and they didn’t count it? Anonymous employees could be legit or could be made up, it’s like impossible to tell. Either way, this feels like more political drama than healthcare.
The part about “unprecedented list of accomplishments” is kinda funny though because every politician has that. Anonymous employees quote anonymous employees, classic. If he fired people then yeah they could be disgruntled, but that’s also like… his choice. I saw someone on TikTok say the Times was basically lying because of one source, but idk if that’s even true. Either way, the NYT is gonna defend themselves and he’s gonna scream unfair, and the calendar won’t change what people already decided.