WHQR's Sunday Edition is a free weekly newsletter delivered every Sunday morning. You can sign up for Sunday Edition here.
Well, this was a grim week: surreal and ultimately sad, marked by the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and the predictable but depressing cycles of recrimination and escalating rhetoric that followed.
I had planned for this to be a very short and fairly low-key Sunday Edition. I had a minor outpatient medical procedure scheduled on Wednesday morning, and I figured I'd spend a couple of days, maybe the rest of the week, recovering, feet up on the couch with something mindless and fun on the television.
Instead, I found myself standing on the porch, watching a gruesome and terrifying video of Kirk being fatally shot. Maybe it was the Valium I’d been prescribed to take early in the morning before my surgery, or the magnitude of what I was seeing, but it didn’t sink in at first. I made a cup of coffee, read a few more headlines – most outlets had rolling updates every few minutes – and tried to focus.
Even before Kirk’s death was confirmed, social media was on fire (or, rather, the existing blaze intensified). There were earnest attempts to reckon with the situation, expressions of horror and sympathy, but there were other loud voices trying to crowd that out: conspiracy theories, baseless accusations from the right, and, yes, sick celebrations of the shooting on the left. I knew it would be bad, and after seeing the video, I didn’t see any way Kirk could have survived; when President Donald Trump and Kirk’s spokesperson confirmed he’d passed, I knew things would go from bad to worse.
In the hours after the shooting, many on the right – understandably – suspected the killer had left-wing beliefs.
“The left has put every outspoken conservative in their crosshairs. Scary days ahead,” Wilmington-based conservative podcaster and radio host Nick Craig wrote on X.
Conservatives pointed to language on the left demonizing Republicans as Nazis, threats to democracy, and calling for people to ‘fight.’ And, of course, many on the right have used language that demonizes the left, saying they’re ruining the country, and Trump himself has famously called on his followers to “fight like hell” or risk losing their country. Both sides are guilty of using hyperbolic rhetoric – but on Wednesday, Kirk’s death sharpened the criticism of the left.
Were some conservatives being hypocritical? Yes. But others have very real reasons to be fearful. Some, including local officials I’ve spoken with about this, have been threatened, sometimes credibly. Some have had to call law enforcement, and some started carrying guns or other weapons. This hasn't stopped them from speaking their minds, which I think is admirable, even when I disagree with them. I don't want to live in a country where we win policy arguments by cowing people into silence (you can visit countries like that, if you like, and see for yourself: it's no fun.)
I know from personal experience that, even as a very low-level public figure, some of this just comes with the territory. Having been threatened by total strangers, both online and in person, I can tell you, again, it’s no fun. It changes how you think about things. But it also changes how you talk about things. So I’ll say this: if this is the beginning of a new era for respectful, thoughtful discourse for the right – and the left – that would be great.
But respectful and thoughtful was not the order of the day on Wednesday. Not on social media, anyway.
Many were happy to fan the flames, and in some cases, mainstream media outlets did more harm than good – botching quotes intended to illustrate who Kirk was by taking them out of context and rushing out unvetted information about the shooting.
The Wall Street Journal and New York Times ran with stories about an internal federal law enforcement bulletin claiming that the ammunition in the rifle used to kill Kirk was “engraved with expressions of transgender and antifascist ideology.” Jake Tapper led with that on CNN, over the better judgment of his colleagues, who had been more cautious; he had to come back later on the show and add the caveat that the information was unverified.
Later, the Journal updated its reporting to note that “the bulletin may not accurately reflect the messages on the ammunition.” The Times seems to have included that in their reporting as well, with “some sources urge caution” in the headline – but they still ran with it.
In my opinion, the Journal and the Times were trying to compete with social media influencers who were getting a lot of information – much of it dodgy as hell – out to the public very quickly. Crime reporting is tough and the stakes are high. Both papers and CNN, in my view, not only helped exacerbate the seething rhetoric around Kirk’s death, but also put the transgender community in danger. (Yes, I’m armchair quarterbacking some of the hardest-working newsrooms in the country, I get it. But they shouldn’t be above reproach in all this.)
What we now know about Tyler Robinson, the man accused of killing Kirk, suggests the engravings on the .30-06 ammunition are a combination of layered irony, gamer references, and puerile humor (“if you’re reading this, you’re gay,” one casing allegedly read). They have not advanced our understanding of the killing much at all, as the Time Magazine headline eloquently put it, Robinson “left messages with no motive.”
The truth is, we are in a precarious moment of escalating political violence. It is the “most significant and sustained surge in such violence since the 1970s,” according to Reuters, which tracked over 300 cases of political violence since the January 6 attack on the Capitol. There have been 150 attacks in the first six months of this year alone, double the amount that occurred over the same time period last year.
This violence includes Kirk’s assassination this week, and two attempts on Trump’s life. It includes the kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and the assassination of Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, by a man who also shot and wounded Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife. It includes the arson attack on the home of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.
There is no coherent political framework for all these attacks – no grand cabal targeting elected officials on both sides. What we do have is a lot of undiagnosed and or untreated mental health issues and a healthcare system that makes effective treatment difficult and unaffordable. We also have an online culture – and social media algorithms – that promotes and amplifies anger, aggression, and aggrievement. We have political leaders who have benefited from that environment and who have helped feed into it. Many will point to Trump, and he has done his fair share of damage, but he’s not alone. Biden’s attempt to frame Trump as an existential threat – instead of presenting a cogent set of superior policies – can also be seen as licensing violence. You’ve seen the signs, ‘Trump is a Nazi” and “Trump is a fascist.” What do you do with Nazis and fascists? As I wrote last week, I’ve spoken with some on the left who feel the current administration is so bad that it requires more than what falls under the umbrella of constitutionally protected protest, more even than civil disobedience.
“Hey fascist! Catch!” – That is, allegedly, what one of Robinson’s engravings read.
Kirk’s slogan was ‘prove me wrong.’ For critics who saw Kirk’s ideas and arguments as flawed, the rebuttal should have been better ideas and arguments. Go back and watch William F. Buckley debate James Baldwin – and think about what happened to Buckley’s stance on civil rights and affirmative action in his later years. Ezra Klein is getting a world of shit right now for writing that Kirk was “practicing politics the right way.” But whatever you think of Kirk’s debating style, I have to believe it’s preferable to violence.
It’s been less than a week, and already so much has been said about Kirk’s murder and the political context around it. It’s a national story, maybe even a world historical one, and there have been plenty of people who have articulated the moment better than I could. Highlights, for me, included Scott Simon’s weekly essay and his conversation with Ron Elving on NPR’s Weekend Edition this Saturday and Stephen Colbert’s cold open on Wednesday’s The Late Show.
Perhaps most to the point was a powerful address given by Utah Governor Spencer Cox, a Republican, who called the assassination an attack on American ideals and lamented for our nation’s youth, who are “inheriting a country where politics feels like rage.” Cox asked people to “choose a different path,” and referencing Kirk’s own words, said society needs "reasonable agreement where violence is not an option."
Encouragingly, that was the tone struck by UNCW students on both sides of the political spectrum. In a joint statement by the university’s College Republicans and College Democrats, students extended their condolences to Kirk’s family, condemned “all forms of senseless political violence,” and affirmed that a “public life free from fear or intimidation” is more important than any partisan difference. I’ve spoken with the chairs of the New Hanover County GOP and Democratic parties, who shared similar sentiments, and said they’re working on their own joint statement (which may be out by the time you read this).
When a public figure like Kirk dies, there’s almost always good and bad. There’s a graceful way to balance the two – but not everyone is capable of threading that needle. Not everyone is interested in doing so. But journalists have to try. We write obituaries, not eulogies. We do not lay flowers on graves or dance on them.
So what can a journalist say?
Kirk was beloved by millions. He could have easily translated his following and his gifts of debate and persuasion into politics. He would have been a formidable candidate for any office, and I suspect he would have been courted to run for president, if he had lived long enough to be eligible – but at 31, that was still years away. He was murdered in front of his family in a terrifying act of violence that honestly few of us could comprehend. That Erika Kirk was able to deliver remarks – passionate and defiant – to the nation, just days after her husband’s death, is an astonishing act of resilience and resolve. Whatever ways in which some might capitalize on his death for political gain, the grief that many Americans are feeling is very real.
Kirk was also loathed by many, who found his comments about race, DEI, Islam, the queer community, and other issues to be insensitive, offensive, or hateful. Critics – including me and many of my colleagues from my time in academics – also took issue with the “Professor Watchlist,” a project of Kirk’s Turning Point USA nonprofit. Whatever you think of its mission to “expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom,” it licensed Kirk’s fans to harass and intimidate professors. Setting aside those who are reveling in political Schadenfreude or spite, there are many who have been genuinely hurt by the views Kirk and his followers espouse. That pain is also real.
As a journalist, you can’t have just one or the other. But private citizens are entitled to feel and say what they want. People aren’t required to be graceful; they needn’t give quarter to the opposing view. That’s their freedom of speech.
Some of that speech has been savage. Many used Kirk’s quotes – again, sometimes out of context – about empathy and the Second Amendment to imply or outright say that no mourning was necessary, or that he was, in fact, to be blamed for his own death. MSNBC fired analyst Matthew Dowd for saying, “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions,” and there’s been a rash of professors fired or disciplined for insensitive comments. A website has been set up to doxx people who are “celebrating Charlie’s death” – a coordinated effort that appears to be having some success, according to CNN.
I struggled with this part of the story. On the one hand, I was deeply depressed by the inhumanity of comments like “this isn’t a tragedy, it’s a victory.” On the other hand, I can’t square the persecution of employees, academics, and even students with the freedom of speech Kirk championed, and which made his entire project possible. I don’t have an answer here, other than to say it’s one of the American paradoxes we all have to wrestle with.
In closing, let me say this: Journalists have to bite their tongues most of the time, but most of you can say what you like. Free speech is an incredible gift, which most of the world does not have. I’m not going to lecture you, or hector you, or appeal to your better angels about how you use it.
But, just as a thought experiment, set aside the whataboutisms and the recriminations and the purity tests and the selective outrage, just for a moment, and ask: do we still believe that honest and earnest debate is the way forward? If not, what are we all doing here?
As always, thanks for reading.
Editor's note: The original version of this column mis-identified Spencer Cox as the governor of Arizona, instead of Utah.
