Missing a slam-dunk headline

This is a pretty cool example of media bias distorting facts in order to cause kind of a Shiri's Scissor scenario in the reader based on where they get their news. Liberal source gives an inaccurate, more interpretive story based on what is already known about the parties involved. I'd wager a more conservative source would just give a direct statement of what RFK said here, which sounds fairly reasonable if you have no bias against the man and his team. Discussing this point becomes incredibly controversial between the groups because we have opposing interpretations of the same event, and it's difficult to come to any understanding without breaking many things down into smaller parts.

All this is to say I agree, it should have been an opinion piece. It's dishonest as it is now and would only cause friction, confusion, and raised hackles. We know how troubled teen camps fail kids, and what happens when bad people have power over vulnerable people. The writing is on the wall, but it's not clear for all of us. Be less inflammatory and more informative, is what I think news should be.