The mainstream media can be heartless. But this faux pas is career ending.
Now the New York Times is going under after this reporter made a monstrous mistake.
New York Times’ Peter Baker Smears Charlie Kirk, Misrepresents His Legacy
During a panel discussion hosted by The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, New York Times White House Correspondent Peter Baker labeled the late Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, a “symbol of the toxic culture” in politics, casting a skewed and unfair portrayal of the conservative leader assassinated on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University.
Baker’s remarks, which downplayed Kirk’s transformative role in mobilizing young conservatives and promoting open debate, reflect the New York Times’ ongoing bias against conservative figures, framing Kirk’s legacy as divisive while ignoring his commitment to fostering civil discourse and energizing a generation for American values.
Baker’s Misleading Characterization
Goldberg opened the panel by asking about Kirk’s role in the Republican and broader political landscape. Baker responded, “Charlie Kirk was a 31-year-old we call an influencer, I guess, these days, provocateur would be another word, he — out there galvanizing young voters, particularly on the right, to support Trump.” He acknowledged Kirk’s evolution from a non-Trump supporter to a key ally of President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Vice President JD Vance, noting Vance’s decision to escort Kirk’s casket on Air Force Two to Arizona.
However, Baker’s depiction turned negative, stating, “He said a lot of things that got a lot of people riled up, right? And that was part of his style about race, about gender, about affirmative action and Islam and things like that,” adding, “He’s, you know, become in this last few days, I think, a symbol of the toxic culture that we’re in right now, [in] politics.”
Baker’s framing, echoed by the New York Times’ broader coverage, paints Kirk as a mere provocateur, ignoring his efforts to engage diverse audiences on college campuses, including liberal strongholds, to debate ideas openly. Kirk, who founded Turning Point USA at 18, grew it into a powerhouse mobilizing millions of young conservatives through events like the “American Comeback” tour, where he was fatally shot by 22-year-old Tyler Robinson.
His willingness to face hostile crowds, as at Utah Valley, showcased his commitment to free speech, a fact Baker grudgingly noted but quickly overshadowed with accusations of fostering toxicity.
Kirk’s True Legacy
Kirk, 31, was a pivotal figure in the conservative movement, inspiring young Americans to embrace principles of limited government, free markets, and constitutional values. His “American Comeback” tour, launched in 2025, aimed to spark civil dialogue, encouraging students to challenge his views in Q&A sessions, as seen in Orem, Utah, where he was killed. Kirk’s influence extended beyond rhetoric; his organization registered thousands of voters and countered progressive dominance on campuses.
Supporters, including Trump, who called him “a good person” on Fox & Friends, and Vance, who credited Kirk with shaping his political path, celebrated his ability to unite and energize conservatives without resorting to the divisiveness Baker alleged.
The New York Times’ narrative, exemplified by Baker’s comments, distorts Kirk’s legacy by focusing on controversial statements while ignoring his broader impact. Kirk’s critiques of affirmative action and other policies were rooted in a belief in meritocracy and individual liberty, resonating with millions who saw him as a defender of American ideals.
His death, marked by a rifle casing inscribed with “Hey fascist! Catch!” and anti-fascist lyrics, underscored the real toxicity: politically motivated violence targeting conservatives, a trend the Times often downplays, as seen in its coverage of the 2024 Trump assassination attempts.
Media Bias and Broader Context
Baker’s remarks reflect a pattern of bias at the New York Times, which frequently portrays conservative figures like Kirk as divisive while excusing inflammatory rhetoric from progressive outlets. The Times’ framing aligns with critics like former MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd, who was fired for blaming Kirk’s death on his own advocacy, a narrative Baker’s “toxic culture” comment subtly reinforces.
In contrast, Kirk’s supporters, including Missouri Rep. Justin Sparks, praised his ability to “bring people together around common-sense values,” as noted in a September 12 Daily Wire interview. The Times’ selective focus neglects Kirk’s role in fostering debate, unlike California’s Senate, which pushes policies like the mask ban to hinder federal law enforcement, escalating tensions rather than resolving them.
As investigations into Robinson’s motives continue, with charges of aggravated murder pending, Kirk’s assassination has galvanized calls for unity against political violence. Baker’s comments, and the New York Times’ broader coverage, risk perpetuating division by misrepresenting a leader who championed open discourse, undermining the very dialogue Kirk sought to advance.
