The war of words between Candace Owens and Erika Kirk has continued, with Owens responding to comments made by the Turning Point USA CEO on Fox News.
On Wednesday, Kirk made thinly veiled references to Candace Owens, by sharing that she was fine with people being critical of her, until the criticisms involved family members and Turning Point USA employees.
“Here’s my breaking point on that: Come after me, call me names — I don’t care,” Kirk told Harris Faulkner. “Call me what you want, go down that rabbit hole — whatever. But when you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk Show family, when you go after the people that I love, and you’re making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode going after the people that I love because somehow they’re in on this? No.”
In her podcast on Wednesday afternoon, Candace Owens argued that Erika Kirk had what she labeled as “Meghan Markle Syndrome”, stating that the definition was “you want privacy when you want it, but you want publicity whenever you want it. And that just doesn’t work. It doesn’t work that way,” she reiterated.
Owens argued that it’s difficult to take calls for privacy from Erika Kirk after the way she has responded publicly to the death of her husband.
“This is the same person who had someone record her over Charlie Kirk’s casket,” said Owens. “That was not our business, truly, and I can say that decision was made by her. There is some credence to the idea that everybody grieves differently. I wouldn’t record myself over a casket, ever. Some people may want to have that memory. But the decision to publish that — her crying over her husband’s casket and to publish his body on Instagram — was a decision made by Erica.
“That is an incredibly personal and incredibly intimate moment — an intimate moment that she invited the public into,” continued Owens. “There was no reason to do that outside of wanting to share something very private with the public. And now, fast-forward three months, and it’s ‘Why does the public want to know where he’s buried?’ It doesn’t work like that. You have to make a decision: I want this always to be private, or I want this always to be public.”
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
Sorry Candace there’s no rule book on how or what Erika does, and certainly not your rule book.
You need to find another way to attract viewers, what you’re doing is pathetic.
Maybe wait and see how and what evidence is eventually revealed, and take your personal feelings out of it.
If you’ve actually watched Candace’s show, she has been nothing but respectful toward Erika. She didn’t even speak about her until Erika began telling her to stop asking questions and, honestly, that alone raises understandable concern. When someone pushes back against basic inquiries, it naturally appears suspicious. Candace’s questions weren’t attacks, they were the same questions anyone would ask when timelines shift and public statements contradict each other.
Claiming that she’s just doing it to “attract viewers” is a way to discredit her without actually referring to what she’s saying. Sorry, Toots, but people are sick of that kind of cheap dodge. Candace attracts viewers because she’s addressing some serious questions, which anyone who isn’t brainwashed by the Israel narrative is asking.
I’ve followed Candace’s work long before this tragedy, and what disappoints me in reactions like these is how quickly people dismiss the full scope of what she actually does. Her investigations into corruption in the French system, abuse within churches, ideological issues in schools, and so much more were not “for views.” They were difficult, uncomfortable journalism that required real courage and consistency. People keep reducing her intentions here without engaging with her broader work or watching the Brigitte and Charlie episodes in full. Whether or not someone agrees with her conclusions, she has consistently taken risks to uncover things others won’t touch and that deserves at least a fair-minded approach. I’m genuinely confused by the division surrounding this. I’m perfectly capable of supporting her investigative reporting while still thinking for myself, holding my own political beliefs, and maintaining my friendships. We are capable of nuance. We can take in information without abandoning our own judgment. And as Candace has said herself, she’s human, open to correction where necessary.
To disregard years of her investigative work because of one emotionally charged moment, or worse, without doing any research at all, feels incredibly unfair. If we’re going to critique her motives, we should at least begin with a full understanding of the context. Research first. Watch the episodes. Then share your perspective. That’s how we keep conversations honest instead of reactionary.
I’ve followed Candace’s work long before this tragedy, and what disappoints me in reactions like these is how quickly people dismiss the full scope of what she actually does. Her investigations into corruption in the French system, abuse within churches, ideological issues in schools, and so much more were not “for views.” They were difficult, uncomfortable journalism that required real courage and consistency. People keep reducing her intentions here without engaging with her broader work or watching the Brigitte and Charlie episodes in full. Whether or not someone agrees with her conclusions, she has consistently taken risks to uncover things others won’t touch and that deserves at least a fair-minded approach. I’m genuinely confused by the division surrounding this. I’m perfectly capable of supporting her investigative reporting while still thinking for myself, holding my own political beliefs, and maintaining my friendships. We are capable of nuance. We can take in information without abandoning our own judgment. And as Candace has said herself, she’s human, open to correction where necessary.
To disregard years of her investigative work because of one emotionally charged moment, or worse, without doing any research at all, feels incredibly unfair. If we’re going to critique her motives, we should at least begin with a full understanding of the context. Research first. Watch the episodes. Then share your perspective. That’s how we keep conversations honest instead of reactionary.