Commentary by Stephen Macaulay
Anyone who has tried to organize anything that involves other people — whether it is a school bake sale or an organization that has grown to have some 250,000 student members — knows there are people who want them to fail. This is predicated on everything from taste (“We should have a fruit sale!”) to ideology (“You are a bunch of cranks!”).
In order to get it done, the leaders need to be resilient and strong. They need to overcome the resistance and stick to the mission.
And if they do, they can be successful.
Charlie Kirk was clearly an individual who overcame pushback and built Turning Point USA into something that is far greater than he, which is probably one of the things he set out to do.
It is sad that he died for his mission.
But Kirk succeeded because he lived in a country where freedom of expression is explicitly written into the Constitution’s very First Amendment.
Without it, organizations like Turning Point USA would have had to be an underground operation rather than the public-facing one that it is.
For many years, conversative complained about the “Cancel Culture” that they saw as a de facto push back against their ideas by liberals, whether this was in Hollywood or in the media.
The objective of Cancel Culture is to work to make sure that the ideas that they find distasteful are ridiculed or outright eliminated.
It operates against freedom of expression.
I have never liked Jimmy Kimmel. I have always found him to be smarmy. But now I wonder whether I may run into big trouble for describing him as such.
Kimmel reportedly said on his ABC late-night variety show Monday night (as I don’t like him, I certainly didn’t watch):
“We had some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
And then Conservative Cancel Culture kicked in. To quote Dick Cheney, “Big time.”
Nexstar, an outfit that has 32 ABC stations, said it was pulling Kimmel’s show. This is non-trivial. Nexstar Media Group owns the largest group of local television stations in the US, reaching some 220 million people. While not all of these stations are ABC affiliates, Nexstar has a massive reach and its company has more ABC-affiliated stations than any other company.
Then Federal Communications chairman Brendan Carr said on the Benny Johnson podcast that stations needed to “take actions on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
Cancel work, perhaps.
So ABC, not surprisingly, has canceled his show, Jimmy Kimmel Live!
While it actually said that it was being preempted “indefinitely,” that’s fooling no one. Kimmel was probably handed a cardboard box for his things.
This was a business decision. ABC’s existence depends on commercials. Commercials are sold on audience size and demographics.
By taking Kimmel off its stations, Nexstar minimized the audience size, so that means advertisers would be less interested in advertising, or if they were interested, they would pay a fraction of what they otherwise had been. Less money for ABC.
But the funny thing is, terrestrial outlets like ABC have not only been losing audience due to cord-cutting — ABC has lost about half of its audience in primetime over the past 10 years — but younger people, including the key Millennial and Gen Z demographics that advertisers so desire, have foregone television sets for their phones.
Presumably if they bother to read or see a video about Kimmel being let go they might think that ABC is really lame. Even though they’re probably unlikely to tune into The Golden Bachelor (a clue about ABC’s audience?), they certainly won’t feel particularly positive about the network given this move (assuming they have any idea who Kimmel is).
Kirk didn’t build his organization via TV.
Funny thing how so many, especially those on the right who are not members of the demographics that ABC would so much like to present to advertisers, are exercised by criticism by TV performers.
As Charlie Kirk said earlier this year at the Oxford Union, according to Washington Monthly, “You should be allowed to say outrageous things.”
Seems some of his supporters don’t think so.
His memory is more well served by allowing even smarmy TV performers to say stupid things.
Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.
_____________________________________________
A Call for Responsible Political Discourse
Commentary by Rich Corbett
The tragic death of Charlie Kirk on September 10 marks not just the loss of a passionate conservative voice, but a sobering moment for American political discourse. At just 31 years old, Kirk had built Turning Point USA into a formidable force in campus conservative activism, inspiring countless young Americans to engage with political ideas and defend their faith and principles.
The circumstances of Kirk's death — shot while speaking at Utah Valley University — represent a troubling escalation in political violence that should alarm every American who values democratic discourse. This tragedy follows a disturbing pattern of increasingly heated rhetoric that has moved from the realm of words into the realm of violence.
When public figures consistently describe political opponents as "threats to democracy," “fascists,” or “Hitler,” we must ask ourselves: what impact do such words have on those already predisposed to violence? While the vast majority of Americans across the political spectrum condemn violence, inflammatory language can serve as kindling for those few individuals willing to act on extremist impulses.
Political discourse has always been robust in America, but there's a meaningful difference between passionate disagreement and rhetoric that dehumanizes opponents or suggests they pose existential threats. When media personalities and political leaders frame routine policy disagreements as battles for the soul of America, they risk normalizing the idea that extreme measures might be justified. The hypothetical question is often asked in philosophical discussions: “Knowing history, if you could eliminate Hitler prior to his rise to power, would you kill him?” It may not take much for those who are radicalized by the rhetoric.
Recent years have seen an alarming trend of political violence, with the recent targeting of conservative figures and assassination attempts on President Trump suggesting a particularly concerning pattern that warrants honest examination. We must acknowledge that words matter and those with platforms have a responsibility to choose them carefully.
Charlie Kirk believed deeply in the power of ideas and debate. He built his career on the premise that conservative principles could win in the marketplace of ideas if given a fair hearing. His death should serve as a catalyst for all Americans to recommit to civil discourse and peaceful political engagement.
Media organizations must examine whether their coverage contributes to political hostility or encourages democratic participation. Political leaders must model responsible rhetoric that acknowledges the humanity of opponents. Citizens must resist echo chambers that reinforce the worst assumptions about those who disagree with them.
The best way to honor Kirk's memory is to recommit ourselves to the vigorous but civil discourse he championed. America has always been at its best when we've maintained passionate political debate within bounds of mutual respect. The death of Charlie Kirk should serve as a wake-up call that we've drifted too far from that ideal. In a democracy, words have power—it's time we all used that power more responsibly.
Corbett writes about myriad subjects at My Desultory Blog.