Moments after Charlie Kirk was shot at a Utah campus, MSNBC had senior political analyst Matthew Dowd on air to react. He shared ill-considered remarks, implying that Kirk’s hateful rhetoric might have contributed to his violent fate.
Before the day’s end, the news network severed ties with the contributor.
Dowd wasn’t the only person to speak prematurely in opining about the Kirk story, but his firing speaks volumes about the pressure in TV news — particularly in breaking news situations — to weigh in with hot takes, and why it’s OK, even prudent, to simply shut up.
Instead, the Turning Point USA founder’s death, which was confirmed after Dowd weighed in, provided another stark demonstration of the thirst for instant gratification that has overwhelmed our politics and punditry, with people speaking before all the facts are in and sorting out the consequences later.
Those early moments of any crisis have also unfortunately become a time of political point-scoring, with voices including President Trump using their megaphones to baselessly accuse political opponents of creating an environment that prompted the latest act of violence, before knowing who pulled the trigger much less why.
As The Atlantic columnist Jonathan Chait noted on X, while every political movement condemns violence by opponents, “The only real test is whether you also oppose political violence by your allies. This is a test Trump has repeatedly failed.”
In some respects, the toxic dynamics of cable news are nothing new. Networks have endless hours to fill, especially in breaking news scenarios. That sense of urgency also plays to the strength of social media, where those seeking attention can wade in unburdened by delay, filters or, among many of the worst offenders, any apparent conscience or memory.
The cable news networks do their hosts and guests no favors by placing them in a position so fraught with peril, although they still manage to act shocked when someone gets out too far over their skis.
Filling time without really saying anything represents its own sort of special skill. As anyone who has ever appeared on live TV can attest, the last thing an interview subject wants to say is “I don’t know” or “I don’t have any opinion about that.” For those seeking to burnish their personal brands, axioms like “Don’t speak ill of the dead” or “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” also get sorely tested.
Because the Internet is forever, illustrations of hypocrisy are never in short supply, such as conservative CNN analyst Scott Jennings trashing Jimmy Carter’s legacy shortly after his death. Where was the indignation from the right then, some X users wondered?
Expecting consistency, however, reflects another kind of naïveté. No, pundits and hosts on Fox News are generally not going to reference acts of political violence committed against Democrats, such as the shooting deaths of Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark in June, the kidnapping plot against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer or the firebomb attack against Josh Shapiro, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania.
Nor are they are going to belatedly apologize for mocking Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, after he was brutally assaulted in their home in 2022, even as they deride reaction on the left to Kirk.
About all one can expect, or really hope, is that pundits and politicians don’t throw gasoline on the fire, and even that’s often too much to ask. Witness Fox host Jesse Watters, who vowed, “We’re gonna avenge Charlie’s death” on Wednesday, after saying, “They are at war with us,” tossing out that vague pronoun before anything was known about Kirk’s killer. Ditto for Elon Musk, who irresponsibly tweeted, “The left is the party of murder.”
MAGA figures also raced to accuse the left of celebrating Kirk’s death, despite scant evidence of any major accounts or voices doing anything of the kind. Others trotted out more war analogies, further fanning the flames.
Referring to the vitriol on X, left-leaning activist Will Stancil posted, “This very site is the greatest threat to America’s internal political stability in almost a century: a rallying ground where extremists earn tens of thousands of dollars or more for calling for political violence.”
A few of those who made messes did seek to clean them up. MSNBC apologized for Dowd’s remarks as being “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable,” but the network surely helped cause that by throwing on a political pundit after the shooting — someone who noted he didn’t share Kirk’s views or hold him in high regard. Nor was Dowd the only person to pay a quick price; DC Comics dropped a planned Batman spinoff series after writer Gretchen Felker-Martin’s response to the assassination on social media.
“Posts or public comments that can be viewed as promoting hostility or violence are inconsistent with DC’s standards of conduct,” DC said in a statement.
Each new act of political violence brings an inevitable and sober discussion about what can be done to break the pattern. Any reasonable discourse along those lines, however, should include contemplating what media can do to stop repeating its mistakes, which were on abundant display in the hours after Kirk’s death.
It’s easy enough to cue up the “Breaking News” chyrons, unleash the instant analysis and start calling out the other side for its brazen hypocrisy. But rest assured, future apologies, firings and hastily issued press releases will go hand in hand with that, unless, by some miracle, networks implement policies that encourage people to think before they speak — and reinforce that it’s OK, really, to have an unexpressed thought.
