The Turning Point USA founder spoke about “the fight for Western Civilization” and the diversity efforts that threaten it. He debated students about autism and deportation and tossed out hats.
Thanks for the reporting. Kudos to those who challenged the mediocre white guy. I wonder if all those who wear the red mark on their head would be OK with using that as a reason to remove them from the country? Their reaction appears to confirm they approve.
Kirk is one of many right wing provocateurs who preach hate and exclusion, but profess religious dogma opposite and incongruent beliefs that cancel each other out.
Supported by dark money hidden and destructive to our democracy , Kirk is just another fascist seeking power to do as he wishes at the expense of others, especially the disenfranchised.!
Not a republican democracy supporter and destructive to what our forefathers hoped for us.
And... the "comic " proved again that few to no republicans have a sense of humor that is funny, just sadly hurtful and sinister!
Did you hear Charlie Kirk's definition of a good journalist? When you read their article you should not be able to tell their.political affiliation! Good advice!!
I did actually appreciate some of Kirk's answer to the question about journalism. It is true that story selection and choices about which facts to include are both judgment calls and therefore places where bias can be introduced into the equation. That's not a new concept in journalism itself but it's also not one the general public talks about much.
However, his final advice, that journalists should mask their political beliefs, is less straightforward. Certainly, that is a traditional school of thought in journalist circles. But there are others who would counter that intentionally misleading your audience into thinking you're a centrist is a violation of your commitment to the truth. It is also, very simply, being biased for the political center, which is just as biased as being biased for any other point on the spectrum.
Different journalists deal with this tension in different ways. The Economist is a very good publication. It also leans conservative and that influences the stories they select (for example, they cover a lot of affluent hobbies and cover other topics from a market perspective) and how they cover them. They wear this leaning on their sleeve — even the publication's name hints at this leaning — and their journalism does not suffer for it. I'm an avid listener of their daily Intelligence podcast and appreciate the coverage. I also trust the publication more because I know what it's all about.
For my own part, I try to sidestep the issue of "bias" altogether. People mean a hundred different things when they say "bias," so I don't think it's a very useful word. Is the Economist biased? I guess, but it's not helpful to say so, and doesn't actually speak to the quality of their reporting. Is my reporting biased because I believe, broadly, in human rights and in trusting expert consensus on complicated topics? I guess. But again, that's not really a helpful way to frame it or for me to think about my own work.
Instead, I aim for fairness. Quoting people accurately. Not accusing detainees of crimes before a court of law has had a chance to review the evidence. Seeking to understand a situation before reporting on it.
Maybe we disagree on housing policy. We probably do. But if I'm approaching my coverage with a focus on fairness, I'll seek to understand your point of view, to represent it evenly, relative to the facts. That's a more helpful lens. If my main frame was "bias," it would force me to both-sides every issue no matter what. When I uncover the antisemitic activity of a local student leader, it would be dishonest and possibly evil for me to write a story that treats antisemitism like a topic we can have debates about, like a topic that has two valid sides and I'm just here calling balls and strikes. But that's what a rigid commitment to being "unbiased" would demand of me.
I hope this explanation sheds light on what I cover and how I cover it. Thank you for reading.
“When you read their article you should not be able to tell their.political affiliation! Good advice!!”
True enough. However if I determine that a Citizen puts the Bible or their beliefs above the Constitution then I can question your commitment to our Republic.
Based on on my reading of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it is clear that those voting for Republicans because they believed it’s they have a “right” to manage their neighbors womb, then they clearly are not fit to be US Citizens.
No voter has done more damage to our rights and the Constitution than Wyoming Republicans. That’s not partisan that’s a fact.
Thanks for the reporting. Kudos to those who challenged the mediocre white guy. I wonder if all those who wear the red mark on their head would be OK with using that as a reason to remove them from the country? Their reaction appears to confirm they approve.
Kirk is one of many right wing provocateurs who preach hate and exclusion, but profess religious dogma opposite and incongruent beliefs that cancel each other out.
Supported by dark money hidden and destructive to our democracy , Kirk is just another fascist seeking power to do as he wishes at the expense of others, especially the disenfranchised.!
Not a republican democracy supporter and destructive to what our forefathers hoped for us.
And... the "comic " proved again that few to no republicans have a sense of humor that is funny, just sadly hurtful and sinister!
I wrote this helpful breakdown of how Kirk is paid by Christian Nationalists to indoctrinate American kids. https://www.publicenlightenment.com/p/charlie-kirk-is-a-billionaire-psyop
Did you hear Charlie Kirk's definition of a good journalist? When you read their article you should not be able to tell their.political affiliation! Good advice!!
I did actually appreciate some of Kirk's answer to the question about journalism. It is true that story selection and choices about which facts to include are both judgment calls and therefore places where bias can be introduced into the equation. That's not a new concept in journalism itself but it's also not one the general public talks about much.
However, his final advice, that journalists should mask their political beliefs, is less straightforward. Certainly, that is a traditional school of thought in journalist circles. But there are others who would counter that intentionally misleading your audience into thinking you're a centrist is a violation of your commitment to the truth. It is also, very simply, being biased for the political center, which is just as biased as being biased for any other point on the spectrum.
Different journalists deal with this tension in different ways. The Economist is a very good publication. It also leans conservative and that influences the stories they select (for example, they cover a lot of affluent hobbies and cover other topics from a market perspective) and how they cover them. They wear this leaning on their sleeve — even the publication's name hints at this leaning — and their journalism does not suffer for it. I'm an avid listener of their daily Intelligence podcast and appreciate the coverage. I also trust the publication more because I know what it's all about.
For my own part, I try to sidestep the issue of "bias" altogether. People mean a hundred different things when they say "bias," so I don't think it's a very useful word. Is the Economist biased? I guess, but it's not helpful to say so, and doesn't actually speak to the quality of their reporting. Is my reporting biased because I believe, broadly, in human rights and in trusting expert consensus on complicated topics? I guess. But again, that's not really a helpful way to frame it or for me to think about my own work.
Instead, I aim for fairness. Quoting people accurately. Not accusing detainees of crimes before a court of law has had a chance to review the evidence. Seeking to understand a situation before reporting on it.
Maybe we disagree on housing policy. We probably do. But if I'm approaching my coverage with a focus on fairness, I'll seek to understand your point of view, to represent it evenly, relative to the facts. That's a more helpful lens. If my main frame was "bias," it would force me to both-sides every issue no matter what. When I uncover the antisemitic activity of a local student leader, it would be dishonest and possibly evil for me to write a story that treats antisemitism like a topic we can have debates about, like a topic that has two valid sides and I'm just here calling balls and strikes. But that's what a rigid commitment to being "unbiased" would demand of me.
I hope this explanation sheds light on what I cover and how I cover it. Thank you for reading.
“When you read their article you should not be able to tell their.political affiliation! Good advice!!”
True enough. However if I determine that a Citizen puts the Bible or their beliefs above the Constitution then I can question your commitment to our Republic.
Based on on my reading of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it is clear that those voting for Republicans because they believed it’s they have a “right” to manage their neighbors womb, then they clearly are not fit to be US Citizens.
No voter has done more damage to our rights and the Constitution than Wyoming Republicans. That’s not partisan that’s a fact.
Not that he actually follows it...