The Misinformation Cascade And The War On Truth
Charlie Kirk's death proves that defamation standards are no longer relevant when the defamed individual is now deceased.
Since Charlie Kirk’s death, there has been a massive wave of misinformation with countless numbers of ignorant meme-consuming people mindlessly sharing without questioning the original source. The proof of Charlie Kirk’s alleged racism, misogyny, white supremacy, and bigotry against the totality of the LGBTQ+ community has been largely supported with echo chamber sourcing. Pointing this out to the individuals sharing makes no difference as they seem to double-down and trust the cartoon, meme, or individuals who are not Charlie Kirk stating that Charlie Kirk said x, y, or z.
Charlie Kirk has been a public figure for at least a decade and there are thousands upon thousands of hours of him speaking and who knows how many written statements on social media. If Charlie Kirk said this thing about black people not having the brain power to get a particular job, certainly, we should be able to find the original source, right? Certainly, the people who feel compelled to share such information would want to make sure Charlie himself actually said this so they don’t defame him. Maybe they aren’t concerned with defamatory lies since the man is not alive to sue them for inaccurate statements.
There are two concerning moral failings here that are colliding in real time. First, we have a total loss of even the basic journalistic principles, and that includes several prominent news outlets. Second, we have people that are quick to jump on any abhorrent statement that is falsely attributed to Charlie Kirk to justify the man’s murder, which was politically motivated and occurred in front of his wife and two young children.
The Washington Post fired a “journalist” named Karen Attiah and she claims she was just sharing the words of Charlie Kirk. The problem? He did not say that black people don’t have the brain power to have certain jobs. That is fabricated. It is loosely based on a quote where Charlie said four specific women did not have the brain power to earn their positions and were elevated based on DEI policies. Charlie Kirk said four specific women were not intelligent enough for the positions of influence and/or power that they held. Who among us has not accused four individuals of lacking intelligence for the position that they hold? Most of us have probably made that criticism for either the current president or the previous president, if not both. This is not a racist comment, but an honest comment and opinion about the role of racial policies that exist in this country.
The Hill, and other outlets, have reported on this issue, but falsely gave the reporter the benefit of the doubt as if she was fired for providing the real quote from Charlie Kirk, which she did not. Her own Substack refutes this as she states “Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.” There is no documented evidence anywhere that Charlie Kirk said these words, because he did not. As a journalist for a major national newspaper, I would hope that she would be fired for making false, defamatory statements about a man who was politically assassinated at the young age of 31. This is journalism 101. Small mistakes happen, but you simply cannot attribute a quote without 100% verifying the quote is full, true, and accurate.
The quote comes from the Charlie Kirk Show on July 23, 2023 and refers specifically to
Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Follow the link and skip to about 53:45 to hear the real quote. As a journalist, I am compelled to provide sources and ensure there is a verifiable original source that is not hearsay.
Attiah failed at basic journalism ethics and is attempting to be a victim while expressing her own freedom of speech. Can a lawyer fabricate evidence and not face consequences? Can a doctor misdiagnose patients through sheer laziness and expect to remain employed with patients coming through the door? The free speech claim wouldn’t hold up if Kirk was still alive, because he would have grounds to sue the journalist who has hundreds of thousands of followers on her social media accounts.
The Hill, USA Today, and other outlets are committing journalistic malpractice by falsely saying Attiah provided a real quote. Attiah’s own Substack post counters this information in which she asserts that Kirk referenced “black women” as a monolith, which would certainly be a racist statement. However, referring to four prominent individuals as lacking intelligence is not a racially-based statement.
Words are being weaponized and there is a war on truth. I was directed to a cartoon strip as evidence that the “groyper” community is behind the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Yet, the fully verified reports of the shooter having a biological male to female transgender romantic partner doesn’t play a role in the consideration of the ideological framework that brought the shooter to kill Charlie Kirk. It takes the most basic of internet searches to learn that Nick Fuentes and the “groypers” are not fond of trans individuals and we can certainly ascertain that somebody in this community would not be closely involved with a trans individual, much less in a romantic relationship. What was the source? A cartoon strip shared by a random individual with no original sourcing.
This is a war on truth.
This is truly the disinformation and misinformation that we were told about during the COVID-19 pandemic, except all of those things turned out to be just information that is not convenient to the entrenched big pharma interests that were looking to profit from fear. What is the motive here? The motive appears to be an intent of causing fear in conservative leaning individuals. Someone who was as welcoming, as gracious, and calm as Charlie Kirk could be painted as a deranged extremist through a series of circular sourcing and quote fabrications. And this man could be shot dead for his beliefs. If my beliefs closely match him, does that make me an extremist? Nobody has demonstrated the racism, misogyny, or anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry without presenting out of context one sentence quotes or fully fabricated quotes.
When you see people who have known you for decades justifying the murder of a man for his beliefs that closely align with your own, what is the take-away message? People are using purported speech that Kirk made as justification for his murder, which is political incitement, political violence, and a violation of our most basic free speech rights. If that weren’t bad enough, it turns out that Kirk never said half of the things people are claiming he said.
We live in a post-truth era now where information comes in bite-sized memes without any need for verification. If your personal echo chamber churned it out, then it’s reliable, and if it comes from a different echo chamber, then it must be fabricated.
The “Both Sides” Red Herring Fallacy
Moderate, middle of the roaders have exclaimed the “republicans and democrats” are too busy being political to be human. Others are stating that we shouldn’t get worked up into a political frenzy. Everytime there is a large cultural disagreement on issues of politics, we have the both sides discussion. Yes, there are extremist individuals, political violence, and inflammatory rhetoric on both political sides. Let’s simply denounce extremism and incitement to violence no matter who it comes from.
However, this time it’s different. One “side” is mourning the loss of an influential and inspiring young individual who welcomed people into conversation. Kirk did this for people of all races, backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, mental health conditions, sexual orientations, gender identities, and political affiliations. Of course, we’re told he did the opposite. We’re told without evidence. We’re told this with confidence and the cognitive dissonance will not be revealed for people are simply refusing to engage with any of the countless examples of Kirk’s welcoming language for people he politically disagrees with.
So one side is mourning while the other side celebrates and/or justifies murder based on free speech that is purported to be hateful.
This is not the society we want to live in. This is a war on truth. This is a war on basic human decency.