On Wednesday, Sept. 9, a single shot silenced a man practicing free speech at Utah Valley University. His tent had the words bolded “PROVE ME WRONG” printed across it, and the students did respond, lining up to ask him questions on political and/or other topics.
Charlie Kirk’s life ended the same day, and the video of the gruesome event was shared widely across media platforms and shared between peers. Speculations and outrage began to circulate, along with criticism of “mainstream” media coverage.
A Gallup poll showed in 2024 that a staggering 33% of Americans expressed “not very much” confidence in mainstream media, and 36% had “none at all.” Comparatively, 31% showed a “great deal/fair amount” of trust in mainstream media.
Gallup also reported in 2024 that 54% of Democrats have a “great deal/fair amount” of trust in mainstream media, while only 12% of Republicans have the same level of trust. Regarding age, 26% of 18-49, 33% of 50-64 and 43% of Americans aged 65+ had a “great deal/fair amount” of trust in mainstream media.
It’s hard to identify a single cause for this decline in trust — especially in the younger demographic. There is, however, a space where many go to express their discontent with the mainstream: social media.
According to “Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online,” social media and the internet are “an attention economy where the most valued content is that which is most likely to attract attention.” Attention is a “valuable resource” — especially when it comes to the media, mainstream or otherwise. Monetary value is derived from clicks, reposts, likes or any other form of interaction. Social media engagement has made its way into the mainstream and is now part of a journalism major’s curriculum. How can we use social media to bring in more responsible views?
Can social media become a more valuable resource instead of a rumor mill trigger for hostilities offline?
While social media is a great tool for spreading news, news outlets sometimes become a hindrance to themselves. As mentioned in previous weeks, people are also more easily able to criticize and fact-check the media, sharing their opinions — mainstream their opinions — in a way they haven’t been able to before. In this environment, not only does the media need to be fast, but it also needs to be accurate and precise.
On Sept. 9, after word of Kirk’s injury spread across social media, MSNBC began reporting the incident.
“He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive, younger figures in this,” reporter Matthew Dowd said on air. “It’s constantly pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups, and I always go back to: hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. I think that’s the environment we’re in, the people just — you can’t stop with the sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words, and then not expect awful actions to take place.”
This political rhetoric sparked outrage on social media, leading to his eventual firing, as well as a slew of subsequent firings following Dowd’s. A website was created by Kirk’s conservative foundation, Turning Point USA, called Expose Charlie’s Murderers. This website’s purpose is to expose those who are celebrating Kirk’s assassination, doxxing them in hopes of getting individuals fired from their jobs as punishment for encouraging political violence.
Many took to social media to “expose” those celebrating the murder, and Kansas State’s social media was no exception.
On Sept. 11, Kansas State made a post on X commemorating the tragedy of 9/11, writing, “Together we remember. #KState #NeverForget.”
The post received over 700 comments.
Instead of comments about 9/11 or the college, each comment was filled with comments about Katie Allen, a Kansas Department of Education and USD 383 school board member, who made the comment “well deserved” on a post with the quote from Kirk saying, “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”
In Allen’s LinkedIn, she had mentioned K-State in her profile, leading many to believe she was faculty at the college. Allen has since apologized for her action, and The Mercury reported she is no longer with the KSDE.
But what does this mean for free speech?
There is a line one must draw when it comes to defining what free speech truly is — especially when it comes to journalists. Words have impact, and how a journalist uses their language can influence their readers or lose them all credibility. Week 1 of Case’s Corner brought up bias and made the claim that journalists “are acutely aware of and they often take measures to avoid their own internalized biases.” There has been a trend, however, of journalists allowing their biases to show through on their public social media and even on air.
In general, the U.S. does not recognize “hate speech” as a legal category for speech that can be prohibited by law. Harmful speech that is illegal in the U.S. usually falls under slander, libel or ‘fighting words.’ And when it comes to media, the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York Times v Sullivan (1964) created the “actual malice” standard of legal liability. In other words, even false statements by a journalist may be protected speech unless it can be shown that the journalist acted with malice. Of course, the average social media user is not a journalist.
How can we balance our own personal opinions and beliefs while reporting ethically?
Journalists are still human. We have our own values and beliefs, and many take up reporting as a way to spread their beliefs. The writing for this column is no different. The media is vulnerable to radicalized views and intense headlines because we look for what is newsworthy in our eyes. What will generate clicks? What will people care about?
This is a double-edged sword.
When we report what we care about, other stories can slip through the cracks. Already on social media, many are voicing their complaints on how the mainstream media isn’t covering other murders as heavily as Kirk’s assassination. However, if the mainstream wasn’t covering this story as heavily as it is now, there would be complaints from the right that the media is sweeping the incident under the rug.
Many lives were touched by Charlie Kirk, both in a good and bad way, but supporting and encouraging political violence against a man utilizing the First Amendment is anti-free speech.
Journalists are considered the Fourth Estate, and it is important to use our own speech as a way to make others heard.
Anchor Beni Rae Harmony recently resigned from WICS ABC Newschannel 20 in Springfield after being suspended for her tearful tribute to her mentor, Charlie Kirk.
She wrote Sept. 15 in a post, “Effective immediately, I have resigned from @WICS_ABC20 after being SUSPENDED for airing a non-partisan tribute to Charlie Kirk this past Friday. Many in the mainstream media have been fired or punished for mocking his assassination. I believe I am the first to be targeted for honoring him on air. My resignation is guided by values that are essential to who I am, which I refuse to set aside in order to keep a job. I choose my faith and love of country, and always will. Thank you, Springfield. My home. My community. My people. God Bless Charlie Kirk and his beautiful family, and God Bless these United States of America.”
Ethics and values define who people are, and how others react when you commit to those values is just as telling as when you express them. Regardless of one’s personal opinion on his conservative values, Kirk’s assassination is a public execution of free speech, a threat that everyone should be outraged about.