Commentary

A Word About Charlie Kirk

by Joe Mandese , September 16, 2025

Tragic.

That’s the first word that came to me when a reader posted a comment criticizing my last column, concluding, “Not a word from [MediaPost] about Charlie Kirk’s assassination – a major driving force in the media landscape reaching young adults.”

While I don’t necessarily agree with the last part of that statement, I think commenting on Kirk’s assassination is relevant to the media landscape for several reasons, including the fact that so many of his followers have been using it as leverage to attack others for saying something about it. Or in this case, for not saying anything about it.

Ironically, that’s the lead story in The Free Press today, which is what I was actually commenting on in my last post (see screenshot above).

“Have conservatives embraced the very cancel culture they once denounced,” contributor Matthew Continetti writes in the op-ed commentary, adding, “In the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination, progressives say yes.”

The author seems to suggest conservatives have not, but if some recent comments on this blog are any indication, it feels like some people are going out of their way to make that case.

That’s ironic for another important reason, because Kirk is being celebrated for espousing civil public debate, free speech and tolerance for divergent opinions, even if he didn’t agree with them. I’d like to think those are my own values too.

So when I first heard he was assassinated, the word that came to my mind was how tragic it was that he was actually the victim of political violence.

And while I know it’s inevitable that some will use that as an excuse to “cancel” others, I don’t believe that is what Kirk stood for, or what he would have wanted.

So in his memory, let’s continue civil debate over our political differences, and not prove Charlie Kirk wrong.

7 comments about "A Word About Charlie Kirk".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Dan C. from MS Entertainment, September 16, 2025 at 10:38 a.m.
I didn't subscribe to Charlie Kirk's podcasts, I didn't read his newsletters, I did not "follow" him and I never liked or thumbs-downed a post of his. It's my job to understand what and who is resonating with young adults. Being a media trade publication, I expressed that it's unreal that legacy and emerging media personalities, influencers, and networks across the globe referred to Kirk as a major media influencer, whether they agreed with his politics or not, and that is why I called out MP. You write stories and commentary about mean words spoken by Trump about the media and yet there is not a single editorial or commentary on Kirk's assassination - an actual influencer, celebrity, major media force for young adults.

And now you're falsley assuming "that so many of his followers have been using it (his assasination) as leverage to attack others for saying something about it. Or in this case, for not saying anything about it. Assuming those who questioned the lack of MP coverage were followers.

Nobody attacked you. It was just brought to your attention how ridiculous it is that MP was completely silent about the death of a generation's biggest media influencer when every media outlet covered it for days. His politics should have nothing to do with it.

So the lack of coverage by MP is either politically motivated, not understanding who and what media is influencing an entire generation, or just laziness - or a comination of the three.

It's not personal, Joe. It's a professional critique where you can't seem to separate your own emotions and politics from news.

Reply

Joe Mandese from MediaPost Inc., September 16, 2025 at 11:22 a.m.

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment: Actually, I didn't say any of those things, but it's a free commentary well, so you can fabricate anything you want, so long as you don't violate our moderation rules. In terms of personal attacks, you can disparage me all you want, because I'm editor-in-chief and that comes with the job. But please leave others -- including my mother -- out of your personal attacks, because that IS over the line.

George Simpson from George H. Simpson Communications, September 16, 2025 at 11:49 a.m.

"a generation's biggest media influencer"

Hardly. And if you look back at his "advice" to those he "influenced," it is toxic, un-American bullshit. Did you also call for Joe to comment on the democratic leaders who were murdered? I suspect not.

Dan C. from MS Entertainment replied, September 16, 2025 at 1 p.m.

@ Joe - first, I have no idea what you are talking about. Attacking your mother? That's ludicrous - please provide a link where I launched any kind of personal attack, let alone against your mother. That's childish and defeats any point I would make. I combat your commentaries with facts and illustrate your bias and lack of research. These are professional observations and counter-points - hardly personal attacks.

@George Simpson - there's a difference between a politcial figure and media figure. Again, I didn't follow Kirk or subscribe to his channels - but he is a media influencer - not an elected official. That's the whole point of calling out MP for completely ignoring this story. If Stephen Colbert was assassinated, who has far fewer followers and IMPs than Kirk, it would be all over MP.

The job is to cover the media landscape and ignorning this story speaks volumes of MP's lack of understanding of the industry and audience, or it speaks volumes to its policial bias.

Mandese always claims that MP is a voice for all sides - yet there is not a single staff member or commentary that ever supports the conservative viewpoint. MP went so far to give the Lincoln Project the Agency of the Year award, even though it is a self-proclaimed PAC and has nothing to do with offering agency services outside of serving its own political agenda.

That is the epitome of bias.

Joe Mandese from MediaPost Inc., September 16, 2025 at 1:24 p.m.

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment: Apologies, the references to my mother were posted by another commenter I've been replying to and I inadvertently transposed it to you. I retract that allegation and apologize for that error.

That said, our comments moderation policies conerning personal attacks and hate speech stand and apply to everyone.

And to your last point, the fact that you can continue to express your voice here in this comments well is proof that MP is a voice for all sides, so long as they are civil ones in keeping with our policies.

And for the record, we do have staff writers -- as well as regular contributors -- who consider themselves conservatives who regularly express that point-of-view.

As for me, I don't claim any political or party labels. I'm an independent voter and I'd consider my personal politics centrist, but occasionally falling right and left depending on the policy or issue.

I'm just anti-Trump, but it's for reasons that have nothing to do with political affiliations or idealogies. I think he's bad for America. And for the Republican Party too.

I believe his only allegience is to himself. He is, and has always been, an opportunist.

Dan C. from MS Entertainment replied, September 16, 2025 at 2:15 p.m.

@Joe

I will close it with this.

I respect you overtly saying you don't like Trump. Whether you don't like his politics or him as a person or both - that's fine and more than acceptable. While you may have staff members you believe lean right or conservative, sorry, I never see commentary from those people. You claim to be down the middle, but your commentary is wildly anti-right and I don't recall any anti-left commentary.

That aside - media personalities at major legacy networks like MSNBC and WashPO being fired for their comments, as well as some local news affiliates and sports organizations. That illustrates my point - this unfortunate assisination of a media personality has had a ripple effect in the industry. I don't know how that's not news and from an editorial standpoint, I am repeating myself, but I just find it odd that there is no coverage from MP considering how many angles you can approach this story with. I agree it's tragic. But it is very much a media story and despite what some of your readers are stating - Kirk was a media personality and not an elected official. He was killed for views expressed in his media outlets and not an elected politician on the stump - there's a big difference.

And while I disagree with much of your commentary, I hope my comments come of as being articulate and thought-provoking and not construed as a personal attack. That was the whole point of Kirk's "Prove me Wrong" tour.

John Grono from GAP Research, September 16, 2025 at 9:12 p.m.

... @ Joe - first, I have no idea ... is sufficient.