Should Gatekeepers Shield Us? More on Jimmy Kimmel. Kirk Suspect Doesn’t Fit Preferred Narrative. Why Are Fairfax Educators Destroying Documents? And More
Do we need “gatekeepers” to prevent us from seeing ugly truths in times of national trauma?
Like former Ronald Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan, I yearn for a kinder, gentler time. Nevertheless, I am uncomfortable about this from Noonan:
Our society can’t live without wise heads who set and maintain standards. In the past week of shock and mourning people mentioned the Zapruder film. They’d all seen the terrible, immediately available, widespread video of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, and his bleeding to death. In days afterward they’d say, “That must be like the Zapruder film when JFK was shot—you all had a lot to process.”
No. We didn’t have to process it because we never saw it. The gatekeepers of the media wouldn’t let the American people see the president’s head shot off. It would be too gruesome and demoralizing, and too inspiring for the mentally ill.
A heartbroken country didn’t need that extra helping of anguish. So, they spared us.
Discuss among yourselves.
Here we go again. A late-night host is being lionized by the Left. It’s not exactly for truth-telling, as what Jimmy Kimmel said was patently false. When Kimmel refused to apologize and was indefinitely suspended, he became a hero. For The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel is an indication that we are living in a dictatorship (but isn’t everything?):
A mock-nervous Jon Stewart took to “The Daily Show” desk for a rare Thursday night appearance to address ABC’s decision to kill Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show indefinitely over his malicious remarks about conservative icon Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
“From Comedy Central. It’s the all-new government-approved ‘Daily Show’ with your patriotically obedient host, Jon Stewart,” an announcer began the comedian’s stint, in which he wore a dark suit and red tie similar to President Trump’s signature attire.
“Jawboning and Jimmy Kimmel” is a Free Press headline. The story is by the Editors—and ouch!:
The suspension of his late-night show isn’t a great loss to culture. But the FCC’s coercion undermines our most fundamental values.
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal also knocks the FCC:
Maybe now our progressive friends understand why these columns oppose government control of business and fought liberal cancel culture. Regulatory power in the hands of a willful President can too easily become a weapon against political opponents, including the media.
That’s what happened Wednesday as Brendan Carr, President Trump’s man at the Federal Communications Commission, threatened Disney and its affiliates if they didn’t punish late-night host Jimmy Kimmel for comments about Charlie Kirk. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Mr. Carr told a podcaster, in words that could have been uttered by a New Jersey mob boss.
The FCC has power over broadcast licenses, so the threat had teeth…. As a private company, Disney has the right to run or cancel shows as it wishes. Perhaps in this case it saw pressure from government as an excuse to drop Mr. Kimmel, who had turned his show into a daily anti-Trump diatribe. But anyone who thinks this is the free market at work is ignoring the ways government can punish companies. Disney’s executives had to look out for the best interests of their shareholders and the Disney brand.
Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel argues that Jimmy Kimmel was canceling himself until Carr burst into the scene. National Review calls for the abolition of the FCC, as does libertarian Nick Gillespie. Meanwhile, Rich Lowry asks why Kimmel asserted so confidently that the suspect was MAGA, when this was so flagrantly incorrect:
Kimmel was presumably misled by the legacy media’s unwillingness to be forthright about alleged killer Tyler Robinson’s motive and by the obfuscations of Democratic officeholders and progressive commentators. If he thought he was trusting the trusted sources, he made a grievous error.
Because the Kirk assassination doesn’t fit the preferred narrative of a hateful right-winger committing an act of violence — rather, the complete opposite — there hasn’t been a national-crisis-level wave of concern about the motive of the suspect and its potential sources.
Instead, much of the press acts as if it is grappling with an epistemological problem of the depth and subtlety that led to the German physicist Werner Heisenberg arriving at his uncertainty principle in the 1920s (it’s impossible to determine both the exact position and velocity of a particle at the same time).
The Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson writes that the debate we need to have is not about free speech but rather about the Left’s embrace of violence. Victor Davis Hanson writes that the Left works hard to hide the truth:
Why is the left fabricating the circumstances surrounding and following Kirk’s murder?
In its signature projective style, the left is terrified that the right might follow its own example — by manipulating facts, ginning up street violence, and issuing non-negotiable demands to achieve its agenda.
The Daily Caller has a fascinating story on the suspect’s “trans” love interest’s reported status as a “furry.” Apparently, there is a growing satanist wing of the furry movement.
Charlie Kirk’s funeral takes place on Sunday. Erika Kirk has been appointed to head Turning Point-USA, in accordance with her late husband’s wishes.
We may at long last be about to see a revolution in K-12 education. From an encouraging piece in Civitas by Michael Toth and Daniel Murphy:
The reckoning that’s come for the legacy education model is long overdue. Its overarching goal is to produce college graduates who obtain managerial jobs. Yet entry-level jobs in marketing, programming, human resources, and other white-collar fields are scarce as companies lean into AI and adopt a “” approach.
This year, a shift toward a new model that returns power to parents and educational consumers has been visible across the three branches of the federal government. The megabill that Congress passed this summer allows taxpayers to write off on their federal tax bills if they give money to “scholarship granting organizations,” which use the donations to help students afford private schools. The new law also vastly expands the allowable uses of 529 plans, tax-free investment accounts that were to allow families to save for college.
These two measures are gamechangers. …
“Why Johnny Can’t Add Anymore” in the Wall Street Journal shows us why we should welcome an education revolution. “Fairfax County Public Schools’ Leaders Won’t Say Why They Are Destroying Students’ Identification Documents” is the headline on a bang-up IW Feature.
“Robert Redford was the Last Movie Star.” That’s the headline on the great essayist Joseph Epstein’s piece on Redford, who died this week. Epstein writes:
Bradley Cooper and Nicole Kidman are good actors, and so too are Gwyneth Paltrow and Brad Pitt. But I’d be hard-pressed to pick any of them out of a police lineup. Today’s movie stars don’t play the role in contemporary culture they once did.
Redford was a decent actor. He could play a quiet cowboy or a slick con man, a straight-laced naval officer or a longing lover, an idealistic politician or a crusading journalist. Whatever the role, though, he was Redford—blond, devastatingly handsome, impossible to imagine as other than American. Make that All-American. …
Once upon a time, the young learned how to converse, dress, court and make love from the movies. The movies were then a part of a substantially unified American culture. Today’s movies are made for select audiences: children, teenagers, single women, certain racial and ethnic groups. Whether the movies aren’t what they used to be because the culture isn’t, or the culture isn’t what it used to be because the movies aren’t, is a question of genuine complication for another time.“
“Quick-thinking dog named Oakley guides Illinois cop to his leash during rescue from burning home.” And a crow named Russell proves that your friends don’t have to be like you to love them.
