BUZZ
Key Takeaways
- The academic news site The Conversation described Charlie Kirk as a 'bigot' in its obituary following his assassination, reflecting polarized views on the conservative activist.
- Kirk, who was shot at a rally, was recognized for his effectiveness in mobilizing young people for the conservative movement, despite criticisms of him spreading misinformation and fostering outrage.
- The Conversation, funded significantly by public universities, has faced scrutiny over its perceived bias, particularly in its negative coverage of Donald Trump and the need for more balanced perspectives.
An academic news site that is heavily subsidized by public universities suggested that Charlie Kirk “was a bigot,” in introducing its coverage of the brutal assassination of the Millennial conservative activist.
The Conversation, which has partnerships with major media companies including the Associated Press, included a short introduction this morning to its news stories.
“To some, Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed yesterday at a rally in Utah, was a hero, the future of the Republican Party, a man whose many young followers stood in joyful attention as he spun his version of the conservative gospel,” Senior Editor Naomi Schalit wrote in the newsletter.
“To others, Kirk was a bigot, a spreader of misinformation and a political figure who thrived on outrage and intimidation,” Schalit (pictured) wrote. “But both his admirers and detractors would agree on one thing: Kirk and the organization he founded, Turning Point USA, were effective.“
The story does acknowledge Kirk’s organizing skills.
“The speaking event where Kirk was shot stands as a model of what the 31-year-old aimed to do: enlist young people across the nation into the conservative movement,” Schalit wrote. “But his killing has been characterized as the deadly outcome of America’s toxic and polarized politics.”
The publication, as reported by The College Fix, receives around $2 millions a year from taxpayers via public university membership fees.
Though The Conversation says it is focused on “journalistic flair” and “academic rigor,” an analysis found most of its coverage of Donald Trump is negative, with zero positive articles found.
A media studies expert previously criticized the bias of The Conversation.
Depauw University Professor Jeffrey McCall said, “The Conversation plays a role in the journalistic sphere by providing a platform for college and university analysts/commentators who don’t write for traditional media outlets.”
“In theory, this is a helpful avenue for ideas to get from the academy to the general public. But given the supposed non-partisan philosophy of ‘The Conversation,’ it would behoove them to provide a balanced range of input and perspectives, and to avoid abstract and hostile language such as ‘fascist’ and ‘bully,’” he told The Fix.
