How Media Matters Assassinated Charlie Kirk, Part 2

This was the first article my friend sent me. Before we begin, let’s take a look at the author of this article. It’s not an NBC reporter, it’s an Associated Press Reporter.

This is what this reporter’s X profile looks like.

Right away I see a George Floyd banner. And he/him pronouns. But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. The Associated Press is a respected news organization that dates back to 1846. And of course, NBC News dates back to 1940 and some of the greatest journalists in history worked there, from Chet Huntley to David Brinkley to John Chancellor, Frank McGee, and Edwin Newman.

Surely a piece published on NBC News and written by the Associated Press is the pinnacle of journalistic integrity, right?

Right?

Let’s take a look.

Let’s start with the headline and subhead.

It used to be that a headline was the “hook” to get you to read the story. That’s no longer the case. The headline IS the story. Editors know that the vast majority of their own readers nowadays will only skim the headline and maybe read the first paragraph. And they also know that their headline will be seen by millions on Google News.

So activist editors will make sure that they editorialize in the headline itself.

Note how the headline is carefully crafted. “Black clergy” are “grappling” because despite “Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric”, he is still being “treated as a hero”. Therefore they need to “denounce Kirk’s beliefs” that “conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Gospel”.

Notice that the headline already “talks past the sale”. Its not a question of WHETHER Charlie Kirk’s beliefs are anti-Christian. You must accept that they are. The “proof” is the “groundswell” of voices in the Black clergy that denounce Kirk.

Anyone who has heard one word that Charlie Kirk spoke about the gospel knows that this is hogwash. The problem is, these Black preachers have clearly never heard Charlie Kirk speak. Like my friend, they are having their opinions handed through them through “things they read”.

There are some important questions I want you to bear in mind as you continue this series of blog posts. How do they form their opinions? What are they reading?

Let’s go on.

Cherry Picking Opinions to Build a False Narrative of a Groundswell of Opinion

The article cherry picks sermons from selected Black ministers. One was from the Rev. Howard-John Wesley of Virginia whose sermon amassed “tens of thousands of views online”.

Wait, what?

Here is an X post from Terrence Williams, a popular influencer on X who is Black. As of this date, this post has 8.7 million views. Here’s another from Brandon Tatum, a former police officer that has 5 million views. And another from Rob Smith with 2.3 million views. Looking for a member of the clergy? Read this post from John Amanchukwu Sr that has 10x the views that the video the AP reporter found.

And the best that this AP reporter came up with was a video that had “tens of thousands of views”?

This is a common trick of the far-left. Cherry pick a handful of opinions, get quotes from them, and them present them as if they’re a groundswell of opinions. We’ve seen this tactic used in the “51 former intelligence agents” kinds of headlines during the 2024 campaign.

The reality is that you can find thousands of opinions on any side of any issue. For every 15 intelligence agents that hated Trump, I could easily find 150 that loved Trump. This approach of selectively choosing a handful of opinions is dishonest and intentional. The intent is to shape the narrative, not report it.

As Saul Alinsky said, “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”

The reporter fails to mention that this same “minister” publicly criticized Donald Trump, heaped praise on Joe Biden and Barack Obama, was a huge supporter of Black Lives Matter (not the concept but the political group), and spoke out against the decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Does this sound like someone who can speak on behalf of the millions of Black Americans who are moderate, conservative, or apolitical? Isn’t the more “racist” one the AP reporter who presumed that this individual spoke on behalf of ALL Black Americans?

Watch these videos and ask yourself, are these the words of a “racist”?

https://x.com/TheRightMelissa/status/1969220076256522656

https://youtube.com/shorts/tFo3sXZaZ6s?si=ZaWZBtdLueNAECeb

Repeating the Lie that Charlie Kirk was a Racist

Note also that the article repeats—without any critical thought or even intellectual curiosity—the words of this handful of cherry-picked Black ministers condemning Charlie Kirk as “racist”.

  • He made “insulting statements about people of color”
  • He speaks “hateful rhetoric that runs counter to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the gospel”
  • His speech included “statements that denigrated Black people, immigrants, women, Muslims, and LGBTQ+ people”
  • He “weaponized faith to justify colonialism, enslavement, and bigotry”
  • He supports brand of Christianity that teaches that “Black people are inferior and therefore enslaved us”
  • He is a voice that “reshapes Christianity to serve power, exclusion, and hate”
  • His speech is “white nationalism wrapped in the talk of Jesus. And it’s not Christian. It’s not.”
  • He “promotes racism”
  • He is “an unapologetic racist and spent all his life sowing seeds of division and hate into this land.”
  • “I don’t agree with anything that Kirk said. What he said was dangerous. What he said was racist. Rooted in white supremacy. Nasty and hate-filled.

If you read all this and did NOT know who Charlie Kirk was, what would your reaction be? Of course, you would think that the world is a better place without Charlie Kirk.

But wait a minute. Did you notice something?

There’s a lot of talk about how Charlie Kirk spews “hateful rhetoric”, “insulting statements”, “dangerous speech”, and “statements that denigrate Black people”.

But there wasn’t a single quote from Charlie Kirk. Not a single example of an actual statement he made. I’m not even talking about out-of-context quotes. NBC News and the Associated Press don’t take a millisecond to even question any word these Black ministers said.

I also noticed something else.

While I was watching the Charlie Kirk memorial, there were many crowd shots during the worship service portion. The camera cut to many people, including this beautiful young woman.

I don’t see her as “Black”. I see her as a young woman who came to honor Charlie Kirk. I see someone who loves her country and answered the call to serve her country. I see someone who is filled with the Spirit, joining the crowd and the worship leaders in honoring Christ. And yes, at some point after all this I notice that she is African-American.

Is this the face of someone who would follow an “unapologetic racist” and whose worship is “counter to the teachings of Jesus Christ”?

Without even knowing her story, what do you think the “ministers who spoke those words above would say about her? They’d probably call her an “Uncle Tom”. They’d chastise her for associating with “white supremacists”. They’d tell her the most racist thing I’ve ever heard come out of a politician’s mouth: “She Ain’t Black”.

The reality is that this young woman likely knew Charlie Kirk through his videos and through his radio show. In 5 minutes I found these additional posts on X that defended Charlie Kirk. Most of them were from African Americans who knew Charlie or who listened to him speak at length. Others are videos of Charlie Kirk speaking up against racism.

If you still believe that Charlie Kirk was a racist, I challenge you to click on each of these links and read them. Most of you won’t. You’re fighting cognitive dissonance. NBC News and the Associated Press would NEVER lie to me. These Black ministers would NEVER make these harsh judgements if they weren’t grounded in facts.

Right?

Do you see the danger of what this AP reporter and NBC News have done?

Do you think a single one of these Black ministers heard more than 5 seconds of Charlie Kirk actually speaking? No, they rely on “trusted news sources” like the Associated Press and NBC News to report accurately.

Since 2018, the mainstream media—following the lead of organizations like Media Matters—have sought to discredit, tarnish, and misrepresent Charlie Kirk.

And as much as we like to think that “free speech “has been restored to America after Elon Musk bought Twitter, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans get their news from the mainstream media and Google News. As I’ve clearly shown, Google News has a monopoly on news information, and they’ve used this monopoly to silence conservative and independent voices, handing their monopoly to the far-left.

I used to scoff when people said that “words are violence”. But I’ve since amended my thinking. When you have an open marketplace of ideas, words are words. But when one side dominates speech, words DO become violence, because there is no counterpoint to that side’s speech to stop it from devolving into extremism.

The lunatic that shot Charlie formed his opinion of Charlie Kirk the very same way that these black ministers and my friend did. He saw all the information about Charlie Kirk from one side that didn’t tell the truth about Charlie but painted a grotesque caricature of him.

Ironically, Charlie Kirk pleaded for both sides of every issue to come together and talk.

“When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.”

That’s why he went to college campuses which were hostile to his message. And in the last months of his life, he crossed over to hostile territory like Cambridge, Oxford, Jubilee, and Bill Maher’s podcast where there wasn’t a “mob” on his side defending him. These reminded me of debates in the days of Lincoln and Douglas, some of these conversations went on for hours and were people talking to each other and not shouting over each other.

Did you see NBC News or the Associated Press covering any of these debates in an objective, unbiased way, without fear or favor? If they did cover the debate, it was only to extract a handful of words they could twist to suit their narrative.

I can find you a thousand examples of Charlie Kirk talking about Black people in ways that were NOT racist. Can anyone find ONE example of him being racist, i.e. criticizing Black people and not the policies that he felt have harmed the Black community?

Now go through the archives of NBC News and the Associated Press. Can anyone find just ONE example of them covering Charlie Kirk that was not aping a Media Matters talking point meant to denigrate Charlie Kirk’s character and actually spoke to the issues he raised?

I’ll wait.

In the meantime, let’s move on to the next article my friend sent me. The one that recklessly branded Charlie Kirk as a “racist” to millions of Americans who didn’t even know they were being brainwashed.