In the wake of the horrific assassination of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, one might have expected America’s legacy media and Democrat-leaning outlets to rally around basic human decency. After all, this was a brutal act of political violence against a prominent voice for freedom, family values, and American exceptionalism. President Trump himself called it a “national tragedy,” and even some on the left issued tepid condemnations. But oh, how quickly that facade crumbled!
What we witnessed instead was a demonstration of insensitivity, subtle approvals, outright laughter, and conspiracy-mongering that exposed (again) the deep rot in the Democrat party. From MSNBC’s victim-blaming rants, to BBC reporters chuckling on air, the response was nothing short of shameful—a stark reminder of why trust in mainstream media has plummeted to historic lows. As the manhunt for the killer unfolds, let’s dismantle this hoax of “balanced” coverage with the cold, hard facts of their most egregious moments.
MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd blames the victim for his own murder right out of the gate.
MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd (now fired) couldn’t resist twisting the knife. During breaking news coverage, he smugly declared that Kirk’s “hateful words” had inevitably led to “hateful actions,” implying the conservative activist had it coming for daring to speak out against the radical left’s agenda. This wasn’t analysis; it was outright victim-blaming, the kind of rhetoric that paints patriots as provocateurs deserving of violence. How low can they go? Dowd’s comments weren’t just insensitive—they were a green light for more political terror, all while the network pretended to mourn. Dowd even suggested that Kirk had been shot by a supporter, “firing his gun off in celebration.” What a despicable way to divert from the obvious.
Katy Tur endorses the “had it coming” narrative on live TV.
If Dowd were the instigator, MSNBC’s Katy Tur was the enabler. She not only allowed but engaged with the notion that Kirk had it coming due to his “hateful words” and “divisive” persona, framing the assassination as some karmic consequence of his bold conservatism. In a moment that should have been about unity, Tur turned it into a partisan hit job, nodding along as if political murder was just another debate point. This isn’t reporting, it’s advocacy for violence against anyone who challenges the woke establishment. Americans deserve better than this bile from so-called public servants in the media.
MSNBC’s broader disgusting portrayal of Kirk as deserving his fate.
MSNBC didn’t stop at individual comments: their entire midafternoon block was slammed for portraying Kirk as a “divisive” figure whose death was somehow less tragic than it should be. Anchors hammered home his “provocative” history—code for “he dared to fight back against Democrat extremism”—over any genuine sympathy. This wasn’t subtle; it was a disgusting undercurrent of approval, suggesting that eliminating such a thorn in their side was almost a public service. In the face of a national tragedy, MSNBC chose schadenfreude over sorrow, proving once again why they’re the fake news poster child.
CNN calls Kirk’s political assassination a “school shooting.”
Over at CNN, the madness continued.
Why focus on the deranged assassin when you can pivot to making this an agenda talking point? A “school shooting” doesn’t actually tell the story of what happened at all. This conspiracy of the mind ignores the left’s history of inflammatory rhetoric and increasingly brazen violence. CNN’s coverage wasn’t neutral—it was a disgraceful justification for silencing conservative voices, one bullet at a time.
BBC reporter’s on-air laughter while announcing the assassination, saying Kirk “wasn’t admired and loved by all.”
Across the pond, the BBC—supposedly the gold standard of impartiality—delivered a jaw-dropping low. A reporter was caught laughing on live TV while describing the chaotic scene of Kirk’s death, her tone dripping with mockery as if the whole thing was some ironic punchline.
This wasn't a slip; it was gleeful indifference to a man’s life snuffed out for his beliefs. The clip went viral, rightfully so, exposing how even international outlets view conservative assassinations as entertainment. What kind of “news” organization finds humor in political murder? The BBC’s response? Crickets, of course.
Jezebel’s pre-assassination “curse” article as indirect endorsement.
In a chilling prelude, left-leaning outlet Jezebel (the remnants of Gawker’s toxic legacy) published a piece just two days before the shooting about paying Etsy witches to “curse” Kirk. Post-assassination, they slapped on an edited condemnation note, though declined to remove the essay from their site, but the damage was done—it was a blatant endorsement of violent fantasies against a conservative leader. This wasn’t satire; it was incitement, wrapped in feminist faux-empowerment. How many more “curses” from these outlets will it take before we recognize them as accessories to the radical left’s war on dissent?
These instances aren’t isolated slips; they’re a pattern of media malfeasance that reveals the Democrat outlets’ true allegiance—not to truth or unity, but to the suppression of anyone who dares challenge their power. While President Trump and true conservatives mourned Kirk as a hero, the legacy media laughed, blamed, and conspired their way through the coverage, costing America not just in trust, but in the soul of our discourse. It’s time for real accountability: defund these biased behemoths, support independent voices, and ensure that no more patriots pay the ultimate price for speaking out. The 2024 election showed us the way—let’s not forget the lessons amid this tragedy. Do it for Charlie.
Image from Grok.