Lead Patriot

Right Leaning Commentary

NYT's Posts Obituary For Kirk
The Scoop

NYT's Posts Obituary For Kirk

Charlie Kirk is gone. He was assassinated on an American campus — a public execution of a cultural combatant, shot in the neck while doing what he always did: asking questions, challenging narratives, and engaging directly with students, face-to-face, mic in hand. He was just 31.

And in death, as in life, the liberal press couldn’t resist taking one last shot.


The New York Times wasted no time publishing what can only be described as a hit piece masquerading as an obituary. There was no grace, no solemnity, no reflection. Just another opportunity to paint Kirk not as a bold, if controversial, voice for millions of young conservatives — but as a disinformation merchant, a pandemic heretic, and a symbol of everything the establishment wanted silenced.

Let’s break it down.

Rather than honoring the man — or even neutrally reporting on his assassination — the Times chose to rehearse every moment he went against their orthodoxy. They opened the file and clicked “repeat”: He criticized the World Health Organization. He pushed back on lockdowns. He opposed mask mandates. He dared to say hydroxychloroquine might help. And worst of all, he didn’t back down — even when Twitter suspended him for wrongthink in March 2020.

But here’s what the obituary doesn’t say.

It doesn’t mention that many of the very same COVID “truths” Charlie was punished for questioning — the origins of the virus, the real-world harms of school closures, and the overstated promises of masks and vaccine efficacy — are now being quietly revised by the very same outlets that mocked him. The Times itself has run stories cautiously acknowledging lab-leak theories as plausible, long after Charlie was called a xenophobe for saying the virus came from Wuhan.


And let’s not forget: the same media outlets that are now ridiculing Kirk for promoting "unsupported claims" spent months platforming experts who claimed the COVID vaccine would prevent transmission completely — an assertion now known to be false. They downplayed natural immunity, demonized parents who questioned masking children, and smeared anyone who brought up therapeutics like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

Yet somehow, they get to decide who was spreading misinformation?

Charlie Kirk’s death should be a moment for the media to pause. To examine what it means when someone is killed not for committing a crime, but for speaking at a university. Instead, legacy outlets used it as one more opportunity to reinforce a narrative — the same one they’ve been building for years — that conservatives are dangerous, misinformed, and deserving of censorship.


But make no mistake: Charlie Kirk was dangerous to them precisely because he was effective. Because he was young, articulate, and unafraid to be hated. He didn’t hide behind safe spaces or curated press releases. He stood in front of thousands of students and took questions — unscripted, unfiltered, unflinching.

And now he’s gone. Not because he ran afoul of a mob online, but because someone aimed a rifle at him from 200 yards away and decided that a man with a microphone was a threat.

Written by Arthur Higgens - September 11, 2025