The Media Research Center still wasn’t done capitalizing on Charlie Kirk’s death to push partisan narratives. Jorge Bonilla grumbled in a Sept. 27 post that a commentator mentioned guns:
In a recent opinion column, former Univision anchor Jorge Ramos attempted to make sense of Charlie Kirk’s senseless murder. In the process of failing to do so, Ramos fell back on familiar tropes.
The Substack column, titled Charlie Kirk, Guns and the Internet, danced around the actual motive behind Kirk’s assassination. Instead, Ramos ascribed the murder to ideologically vague “extreme polarization” and “disinformation on social networks”, while also lashing out against the right to keep and bear arms.
To his credit, he did these things after unambiguously condemning the murder of Kirk. Such is the state of our political discourse that this even warrants mentioning, as opposed to being a normal thing that everyone assumes:
Bonilla was even more incensed that Ramos failed to demonize transgender people:
“Disinformation on social networks” is how Ramos attempts to disguise the actual motive behind the shooting: extremely violent transgender ideology. This much is known from what has been released into the public since the shooting: the text messages between the shooter and his trans-womaning boyfriend, testimony about the shooter’s family relationships, and potential evidence emerging from other servers. All of this information was made public well in advance of this column being written.
[…]We can’t have an honest exchange of ideas if you sweep the motive of this shooting under the “disinformation” rug. That, in and of itself, is disinformation in service of obscuring the role of transgender ideology in this shooting, which Ramos hints at near the top of this editorial:
Many did not agree with Kirk’s ideas – from his rejection of abortion and restrictions on gun sales to his criticism of immigrants and transgender people. But this conservative activist had all the right to say whatever he wished. And he did. Until he was silenced in a completely cowardly and cruel act.
Why would Ramos call out Kirk’s so-called “criticism of…transgender people” and then not address it? Because although he is gone from behind an anchor desk, he still feels entitled to act as an informational dome over his audience.
Bonilla didn’t back up any of his incendiary smears of transgender people, and being transgender isn’t an “ideology” (though his wildly irrational transphobia arguably is). He went on to whine that Ramos than “goes into his tired calls for gun control and laments that the Second Amendment is here to stay.”
Clay Waters spent a Sept. 29 post once again whining that the New York Times had sympathy for people who got fired for voicing opinions about Kirk’s death:
Sunday’s New York Times front-page investigation, “Remarks on Kirk’s Assassination Bring On Broad Wave of Firings,” by Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs and Bernard Mokam, was galling for anyone whose sense of history goes back five years.
During the 2020-era George Floyd hysteria, the Times ran little news coverage of the many people (many not even conservatives) getting cancelled and fired or pushed out of positions for insufficient worship of Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement. Yet when the reverse is happening regarding Charlie Kirk, it’s disturbing front-page news?
The 2020-era firings were mostly ignored by corporate media. But the online job screening firm FAMA posted a gleeful blog listing some of the myriad firings in the aftermath of the George Floyd’s death and the resulting protests, many of which devolved into rioting and killing: “People are Getting Fired for Racist Comments about George Floyd Protests.”
In fact, more than 90 percent of racial-justice protests were peaceful, putting the lie to Waters’ claim that “many” involved “rioting and killing.” And criticizing Kirk after his death is not the same as the racism spews by some in the wake of Floyd’s death. WSaters continued to whine, insisting that fact-checking equals “hunting down ideological disssent”:
After spending years patrolling the social media ramparts hunting down ideological dissent (i.e. “disinformation”) on issues like COVID and BLM, it’s galling to see the Times quoting professors spouting: “Right now, it’s at quite an extreme level of fear that people have in speaking out.”
Why does Waters want disinformation to spread? He doesn’t explain.
Waters returned to huff the next day that Kirk’s homophobia was called out:
The New York Times Magazine posted a 2,500-word essay, likely bound for the next print edition of the Sunday magazine, by far-left Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones: “What the Public Memory of Charlie Kirk Revealed.” Hannah-Jones was the force behind the paper’s discredited revisionist history The 1619 Project, which tied the founding of America to slavery.
[…]She led with an anecdote about a leftist friend’s petulant refusal to let his 11-year-old daughter grieve after hearing about Kirk’s murder in front of his wife and daughter.
As a Christian, Durant also felt he had to address Kirk’s version of Christianity, which condemned and disparaged people who are gay and transgender. Kirk once posted, “The pride and trans movements have always been about grooming kids.” And, in another instance, he had pointed to a passage in the Bible that said men who lay with other men “shall be stoned to death,” saying it “affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
But as author Stephen King found out after a reckless post on the topic, Kirk wasn’t arguing that the United States should copy the passages in Leviticus into law but was quoting “the Bible as part of an argument about how others selectively choose quotations,” according to the liberal fact-checkers at Snopes.
When Hannah-Jones brought up how Donald Trump “called the white supremacists who rallied in Charlottesville, Va., ‘very fine people,'” Waters served up a bogus defense:
Regarding Charlotteville (take it away again, Snopes), Trump went on to say that “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.” But these days who expects a supposed historian to tell the truth when the liberal lie goes unchallenged by corporate media?
But as we documented, the people protesting the removal of a Confederate statue in Charlottesville were, in fact, lead by a white supremacist group, so Trump was indeed calling white supremacists “very fine people.”
Waters returned for an Oct. 2 post grousing yet again that it was pointed out people who said not-so-nice things about KIrk were being doxxed by right-wingers:
In Tuesday’s edition, the New York Times added another weeper to the already well-stocked larder of stories lamenting the nationwide firings of gleeful ghouls who celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk. Sabrina Tavernise’s “She Was Fired for a Comment on Her Private Facebook Account.”
[…]As NewsBusters noted in criticizing a similarly themed Times story, people lost their jobs over far more tame comments during the George Floyd hysteria, especially in liberal-dominated workplaces when they failed to bend the knee to Black Lives Matter. The Times didn’t deign to notice them.
Affirming the fact that black lives matter is “bending the knee”? Really?
Waters also hufffed that the article included “an extraneous smear of Libs of TikTok, who has successfully tracked down hateful posts about Charlie Kirk in the wake of his assassination.” He went on to write of one person who was doxxed and then fired: “At least she has a life to live, unlike the person she wrote about so callously the day after he was murdered in front of his family.”
Sounds like Waters thinks doxxing is cool — when it targets people he doesn’t like.