At the age of 31, Charlie Kirk lost his life over his words. It’s a relatable moment for anyone who has ever cracked a microphone to an audience of one or one million.
No matter your format, if you’ve been on air for any period of time, you’ve said something that has offended someone. Frankly, if you haven’t, you probably aren’t very good at your job. It comes with the territory.
However, what happened to Charlie Kirk was evil on display on Wednesday afternoon at Utah Valley University. Kirk was doing something he had done dozens, if not hundreds, of times: showing up on a college campus and engaging in respectful, good-faith debates with those he disagreed with.
And what we can all learn from Charlie Kirk, even those who disagreed with him on the political issues of the day, is how he always debated with a smile and a twinkle in his eye. There are hundreds of viral videos of Charlie Kirk plastered across social media, with many likely ending up in your feeds in recent days. Despite what some of his detractors may say, you will be hard-pressed to find one where he was angry or outraged. That was not his style—even when confronted by those who were sometimes aggressive or unwilling to engage in an honest debate.
Stylistically, it’s one of the many qualities of Charlie’s that every broadcaster can utilize to their own advantage. Disagreeing doesn’t have to be nasty, and it wasn’t intended to be for Charlie. Our social media culture has allowed it to become nastier because we lack any human element of the other person when we are behind a screen.
The other thing Charlie did — something News/Talk broadcasters in particular can learn from — was to get out of his bubble. Charlie literally lost his life seeking to converse with those he disagreed with. He sought out conversations with people who did not view the country or the world the way he did. And he made genuine efforts to change their minds, knowing full well it was a futile effort with the majority of his dissenters.
It’s easier than ever to get caught up in our own bubbles on any topic or issue. But it’s more important than ever to broaden our conversations beyond those who are in lockstep with us. Charlie’s efforts in this made him a more well-rounded and interesting person. They strengthened his beliefs and sharpened his debating skills. He put himself in uncomfortable situations to try to convince others of his beliefs, but he was also helping himself grow in his convictions. Those experiences made him a larger-than-life political figure and broadcaster.
Of the many Charlie Kirk quotes that have been circulating over the last 24 hours, one has stood out to me above the rest: “What we have to get back to is being able to have a reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.”
Charlie lived that every day. Unfortunately, evil took him away from his life’s mission. But it doesn’t mean his mission has to die in vain. Any small role broadcasters can play in that is worth pursuing.
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.
Pete Mundo is a weekly columnist for Barrett Media, and the Vice President of News/Talk for Cumulus Media, while also hosting “Mundo in the Morning” and programming KCMO Talk Radio in Kansas City. Previously, he was a fill-in host nationally on FOX News Radio and CBS Sports Radio, while anchoring for WFAN, WCBS News Radio 880, and Bloomberg Radio. He’s also the owner of the Big 12-focused digital media outlet Heartland College Sports. To interact, find him on X @PeteMundo.
Pete,
Great piece. I totally agree with your conclusion but I have a little problem with the setup. I don’t think Charlie ever truly “got out of his bubble.” Yes, his mission was to seek out those who disagreed with him and engage them peacefully. But I don’t think he was ever in it for a true exchange of ideas. His drive was to defeat them in that peaceful argument.
I was – and am – a fan of Charlie Kirk because I enjoyed watching him out-think, out-speak and out-manuever those who dared take him on, even though I’m not really comfortable with the part of me that digs watching the damage being inflicted. Sort of like watching UFC. It’s possible that he became a victim of his own success and it would have been difficult for him to find common ground even if he wanted to. That didn’t get him the millions of views – he had to “play the hits.”
I absolutely agree that his death should not signal the end of discourse, even when there is strong disagreement. I do wonder if his journey would have eventually taken him to the political arena as an actual player. He definitely had the smarts and the appeal. He had the following, for sure. Would he have been able to bring compromise to the forefront in his discourse? We know that that is the only way to really get anything done in that world. His future is what our future has been deprived of this week.