The Media Research Center continued to exploit Charlie Kirk’s death to advance right-wing narratives in a series of posts on Sept. 15:
- Morning Joe’s Lemire on Charlie Kirk Killer: ‘Motives Almost Shouldn’t Matter’
- Tyrus: ‘How Many Buildings Burned’ After Charlie Kirk’s Murder? ‘Not One.’ (Yes, the MRC is treating a credibly accused sexual harasser as a voice of reason)
- CBS Turns to Biden Speechwriter, Liberal Historian to Lecture Public Post-Kirk Killing
- The View Wants You to Stop Blaming the Left for Charlie Kirk’s Liberal Assassin
- Biden DOJ Official Condemns Free Speech Moves After Kirk Murder
- JD Vance: ‘No Unity with People Who Celebrate Charlie Kirk’s Assassination’
The MRC’s nepo-baby leader, David Bozell, ran to yet another right-wing safe space to spout those narratives:
MRC President David Bozell visited WMAL’s O’Connor & Company on Monday morning to discuss what the Sunday talk shows (and others) had to say about the assassination of Charlie Kirk last week.
O’Connor pointed out a major blind spot in the networks: a lack of someone who aligned with Charlie Kirk from an ideological perspective:
Why doesn’t the MRC hire someone who can articulately represent non-right-wing and pro-media views? O’Connor made sure not to ask Bozell that. Meanwhile, Bozell once again lionized Kirk:
Bozell also explained that Kirk had inspired his own work. “I think I can speak confidently for nearly everyone in the conservative movement,” Bozell said. “I wish I had done everything Charlie did as well as Charlie did it. I wish I had started a conservative operation as well as Charlie did. I wish I could be as prolific a fundraiser as Charlie was. I wish I could debate as well as Charlie did. He had a talent stack, a skill stack that was one of a kind, and he will be sorely missed.”
Clay Waters whined:
CNN is guilty of gross double standards in covering internet researchers on a mission to expose their political enemies. On Saturday, CNN updated a previous post, “People are getting fired for allegedly celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder. It looks like a coordinated effort,” by CNN Business “breaking news writer” Ramishah Maruf.
The headline conveyed the hostility of Maruf’s story, adding much emphasis on conservatives “doxxing” (revealing personal information on private citizens for the purpose of targeted harassment) the angry left.
[…]Compare that to CNN’s Sara Murray’s June 2021 celebration of “Sedition Hunters,” under the cozy headline, “Meet the internet sleuths tracking down the January 6 insurrectionists.” No concerns about doxxing here. Murray defended this brave band of online leftist sleuths (don’t dare call them doxxers!).
The difference, of course, is that Capitol rioters committed crimes while commenting on Kirk’s death is not a crime — a difference Waters refuses to recognize. Indeed, Curtis Houck cheered that someone was fired for not following the right-wing narrative on Kirk:
Writing Monday morning at her Substack, far-left race hustler Karen Attiah revealed she had been fired from The Washington Post as Global Opinions Editor for a series of ghoulish posts on the far-left hellscape BlueSky in which she downplayed Wednesday’s assassination of Charlie Kirk as part of America’s violent past and falsely claimed he denigrated black women as criminals.
Houck was mad that Attiah accurately quoted Kirk sneering that black women are incompetent, then tried to defend his racism as nothing but a silly joke:
As our friend Greg Price and others have pointed out, that’s not what he actually said. Think of Kirk’s quote as more of a mocking tone toward liberal African-American women who openly declare they are proud byproducts of DEI:
Houck offered no evidence to back up his assertion that Attiah is “far-left” or a “race-baiter.”
Jorge Bonilla similarly gloated that people were getting fired over their Kirk comments:
The NBC Nightly News complains about the rash of firings of individuals celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk. A report full of misrepresentations and obfuscations attempts to turn these formerly-employed individuals into the newest, purest victims of the shooting.
[…]The first misrepresentation is the suggestion that the effort to bring accountability to those who mock the death of a husband and father as a top-down effort from The White House, as opposed to an organic grassroots effort. Before Vice President JD Vance suggested people call the employers of these individuals, online sleuths were out there compiling posts and gathering information. To repeatedly suggest this is a White House effort is a fabrication with no factual basis.
Then there is the suggestion that service members have unfettered First Amendment rights while in the service. Kube’s dramatically intoned “They are not giving up their First Amendment rights when they swear an oath to serve in the military,” with help from a senior research scholar at Yale Law, might sound nice to the ear. But it isn’t based in fact.
Behold Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):
[…]I’m old enough to remember when the media sent reporters to people’s homes over posts about election integrity (among other things). Now they protest the firings of those who would celebrate murder, and celebrate them as free speech defenders rather than miscreants who…fooled around and have now entered into the finding out times. Consider that and assess where we are.
Is that what happened? Or were those people actually caught spreading lies about purported election fraud in order to boost Donald Trump, which played a role in inciting the Capitol riot? We suspect it’s the latter — those folks did indeed find out after effing around by spreading lies. Bonilla’s not going to mention that part, of course.