CSotD: After Further Review …
Skip to comments
Yesterday I said that anyone doing a Charlie Kirk cartoon a day later would have to do something particularly good. Some did well, some not so well, but I like Guffo’s piece, because he doesn’t over-reach but he has something to say.
Kirk’s murder is a blow against freedom, and it’s perfectly valid to say that all murders, and certainly all murders of outspoken political figures, are blows against freedom. It’s also perfectly valid to ask why this murder is getting so much attention while others have not.
But that doesn’t change the enormity of what happened, and it’s too bad we didn’t pay more attention earlier but we’re paying attention now.
What happens next will reveal a lot about our nation and our national character.
Bish focuses on the fact that Kirk was a real person with a real life, as was the Evergreen shooter who died in attacking his high school.
Those of us old enough to remember JFK’s assassination remember little John-John saluting the flag that draped his father’s coffin, but Oswald also left behind a wife and two children. Death don’t have no mercy in this land.
Alagta made much the same point on the same day as Kirk’s death, but his appeal to sorrow is a more specific call for stopping the violence in Gaza rather than a general plea for humane reactions.
I don’t think this cartoon will end the war, but I think there is more chance of tilting that balance than ours, since there is more of a significant movement in that direction.
By contrast, Kirk’s death has already been weaponized as a tool in Trump’s culture war. As Espinoza says, Trump has declared liberals and Democrats guilty of the murder, and a look at comments on cartooning sites indicates that his followers have accepted his premature verdict and embrace his escalation of the war on his political opponents.
Pearly Gates cartoons often border on blasphemy, but Varvel manages not just to suggest that Kirk will be welcomed into Paradise, but to suggest that Christ will not leave things to St. Peter but will make the effort himself, specifically because of what Kirk did on Earth with that microphone.
Given that Kirk believed we should do away with the separation of church and state and his insistence that America is a Christian nation, Varvel’s cartoon should not surprise anyone familiar with the cartoonist’s well-established melding of patriotism and religiosity.
He’s free to say it, and others are free to disagree.
A more serious ethical breach is in secular analysis, with the number of commentators who preface their remarks by saying they were personal friends with Kirk, and the number of interviews with people who were his personal friends.
A little of that goes a long way and should be confined to what Randy Bish touched on: That he was a husband and father. It’s standard to interview the friends and neighbors of anyone killed, whether by murder, traffic accident or house fire.
But when it comes to analysis of his career, basic journalistic ethics should call for his personal friends to recuse themselves. I’ve made this point before:
This is why a lot of journalists hate the White House Correspondents Association’s annual dinner. We occasionally mingle with sources; That’s how you get information. But dressing up, laughing and partying with them at a gala party crosses the line.
And yet CNN apparently had no issue in their coverage over reporting “Prominent figures across the media landscape mourned the death of a man who they knew personally.”
Naturally his friends mourn him, but don’t play that game of “I’m a professional and I can separate …”
I ain’t as dumb as you look.
Here’s another potential fallacy: Kirk was famous for debating with people, and it’s cited as an example of open-mindedness and his ability to persuade. I’d approach that claim with extreme caution.
Debaters compete by arguing assigned positions, often ones with which they disagree. It’s a sport in which the goal is to score logical points, even if you don’t believe in the proposition you were given.
Kirk clearly believed in the positions he defended, but unless he was facing an equally skilled, experienced debater in a formally scored setting, it was like a black belt whipping up on a random person in front of a friendly audience.
Don’t mistake it for an open-minded exchange.
Juxtaposition of the Day
Another thing those of us old enough to remember JFK’s murder should recall is that the TV networks responded by seriously toning down the violence in police shows and westerns, and those programs were already considerably less dark and violent than what plays across our television screens today.
Kennedy’s assassination also led to passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, prompted by our collective horror and by the fact that Oswald got his gun by mail order.
I’d be very surprised if Charlie Kirk’s murder spurred either sort of change. I prefer Bagley’s view that our rhetoric does not match our reality, but Ramses is not wrong in declaring that we’re addicted to guns.
I’m not opposed to guns. I shot competitively as a teen and enjoyed it. I’m also not opposed to automobiles, but I prefer to have drivers licensed and cars meet safety standards.
If there is a battle between the First and Second Amendments, I’m afraid Huck is correct in predicting which would prevail and he’s also correct in suggesting that the process is already happening.
People have already noted that, while MSNBC fired Matthew Dowd for observing that hostility breeds violence, Fox isn’t upset with Jesse Waters for making harsher judgments, and while that double standard angers some people, it shouldn’t surprise them.
This would have been a good time for the president to call for an end to division and an end to hateful rhetoric. Instead, he’s exploiting the murder to advance his war on his political opponents and to sow further hostility and fear among our fellow Americans.
Ah well. It’s easier to put the jigsaw puzzle together when someone shows you what it’s supposed to look like.
Comments 18
Comments are closed.