The NYT's Obituary for Charlie Kirk Is an Absolute Disgrace

Matt Vespa | September 11, 2025 6:00 AM

Charlie Kirk was assassinated yesterday in Utah. He was 31. The conservative activist and commentator was killed, kicking off his American Comeback Tour at Utah Valley University, where he was hosting his hallmark Q&A session, when a sniper’s bullet struck him in the neck.

Kirk torched the liberal media often, so when he was killed, they did so in kind. The obituaries from the legacy media were expected to be trash, but they’re ghoulishly unseemly at the same time. The New York Times was first up:

Mr. Kirk rose even further into the conservative stratosphere during the early days of the pandemic, when he was quick to attack the World Health Organization — which, in his typical fashion, he called the “Wuhan Health Organization” — accusing it of hiding the source of the Covid virus and claiming that it had emerged from a Chinese lab in the city of Wuhan. He later rallied opposition to school lockdowns and mask mandates.
He was so vocal in his willingness to spread unsupported claims and outright lies — he said that the drug hydroxychloroquine was “100 percent effective” in treating the virus, which it is not — that Twitter temporarily barred him in early March 2020. But that move only added to his notoriety and seemed to support his claim that he was being muzzled by a liberal elite.

The jury is still out on hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness against COVID. Also, why are we listening to you about this? The legacy media was a petri dish in spreading lies about COVID vis-à-vis masking, the vaccine, and the botched coverage of ivermectin.

Right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk was part of an influencer constellation that helped amplify Trump's agenda, galvanizing conservative youth and rising to international prominence with often inflammatory rhetoric on race, gender and immigration https://t.co/SgKmMJwgHS pic.twitter.com/MgZ7ESlVGc
— Reuters (@Reuters) September 11, 2025