Yesterday, Matthew Dowd, a former Republican who switched parties, veered far left and has, for years, been a mainstay on MSNBC, was fired by the network.
The reason? These on-air comments he made about the assassination of Charlie Kirk:
“He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.”
“We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration. So we have no idea about this.”
My opinion, as someone who finds those comments exceedingly distasteful? Matthews should not have been fired and MSNBC owes him an apology and a reinstatement.
Yes, they are in poor taste; most especially because they were made immediately after Kirk was murdered. But, timing notwithstanding, they are opinions – opinions that Dowd could have said verbatim the day before and no one would have batted an eye.
As for the speculation that it could have been (not that it was, but that it could have been) an armed Kirk supporter? I find that no more than infinitesimally likely. But until we know for sure who the shooter was and his/her motives, we don’t know, do we?
Let me say again that I find Dowd’s comments exceedingly distasteful. Ugly. Disgustingly timed. But – again – they are his opinions and his speculation on who might have shot Charlie Kirk. Isn’t that what a network like MSNBC is supposed to offer; opinions and speculations, which some people will like/agree with and others will dislike/disagree with?
The above taken into account, an apology and a reinstatement is in order. It isn’t going to happen, but it should.
