No. of Recommendations: 10
Wow. msnbc actually issued an apology for their terrible coverage of this today.
But will take it all back in private while opening a bottle of champaign celebrating.
No. I was on a road trip today and listened to three solid hours of the MSNBC coverage on the radio. No one came across as anything other than seeing this as an awful tragedy that shouldn't happen and representative of the difficult times that our country is having with political divisiveness. As Nicole Wallace said many times, "I would disagree with Charlie Kirk on virtually every issue but I would defend until the end of time his right to say what he believes without being subject to violence".
There was nothing celebratory, nothing other than "This is a dark day in our nation's history". I'm pretty sure there's nothing I or anyone else can say that will shake certain people from their belief that they know what is truly in certain other people's minds, so I'm not even going to try, but I saw it very differently.
Even the Matthew Dowd comments that were apologized for, as I read the quotes, I think were 100% on the money, at the face value of what is being reported. “I always go back to: Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions,” the analyst told Tur. “And I think that’s the environment that we’re in — that people just, you can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts that you have and then saying these awful words and then not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment that we’re in."
Nowhere does he say that Charlie Kirk deserved what happened, or that Charlie Kirk's comments and inflammatory style (so I'm told--I've never actually seen him) were the only contributing factors, but that they contributed to the "environment" that we're in--which is one of many instances of violence from extremists on both sides. What is it about what he said that requires an apology? I'm genuinely having trouble here.
