Jim Acosta Just Interviewed a Dead Kid. This Is Not Satire

They’re Lying About Charlie Kirk’s Killer — Because That’s What They Do

There’s a dead man, a grieving family, and a mountain of evidence pointing in one direction. But if you flip on the TV, scroll Twitter, or watch the smug monologues of late-night “comedians,” you’ll see something else entirely: a coordinated effort to rewrite reality in real time.

Charlie Kirk was gunned down, and before the blood dried, the same people who always preach about “disinformation” were busy pumping it out themselves. They decided that the shooter had to be a conservative, a MAGA radical, a product of the “dangerous right.” The only problem? He wasn’t.

The shooter was a liberal. He dated a trans person. He ranted about leftist causes. His family called him extreme left. Prosecutors dug up texts showing his hatred for Kirk’s politics. That should have ended the conversation. But it didn’t — because the truth didn’t fit the script.

The Pattern of Lies

If you think this is new, you haven’t been paying attention. Every time there’s a politically charged crime, the media plays the same game. They start with a script, not with the facts. Then they massage, cherry-pick, or outright lie until reality matches their script.

We’ve seen it with riots, shootings, even car attacks. When the perpetrator leans right, the coverage is endless, hysterical, and framed as proof that America is on the brink of a fascist takeover. When the perpetrator leans left? Suddenly it’s “unclear,” “complicated,” or just not worth covering at all.

Charlie Kirk’s murder is just the latest rerun of the same ugly show.

How the Books Get Cooked

Here’s how crime reporting really works in the media:

• If the suspect is right-wing, it’s political. If the suspect is left-wing, it’s “personal issues.”
• If the victim is conservative, the motive is blurred. If the victim is liberal, the motive is magnified.
• If race, gender, or ideology cut the “wrong” way, those details get buried in paragraph twelve — if they’re mentioned at all.

It’s the same trick used in statistics. FBI reports, local news roundups, and activist groups all have ways of padding the “white supremacist” numbers while erasing left-wing violence. Arson by Antifa? Doesn’t count. Murders tied to anarchists? Not political. But slap a “conservative” label on someone and suddenly every jaywalking citation becomes part of the “far-right threat.”

Kirk’s killer fits the exact mold that gets scrubbed. Leftist politics, a trans partner, open hostility toward conservatives — all evidence that would’ve been screamed from the rooftops if the shoe were on the other foot. Instead, they filed it down and painted him red.

The Compare-and-Contrast File

If you need proof of the double standard, just line up the coverage.

January 6 vs. BLM/Antifa riots:

• January 6 is called an “insurrection” and treated like Pearl Harbor 2.0.
• BLM and Antifa burned cities for months, killed dozens, caused billions in damage — and it was called “mostly peaceful.”

Kyle Rittenhouse vs. the Waukesha parade massacre:

• Rittenhouse defended himself and was branded a white supremacist terrorist for over a year.
• A BLM supporter deliberately mowed down families at a Christmas parade and it vanished from headlines within a week.

Kirk’s shooter vs. any conservative shooter:

• A left-winger kills a conservative figurehead and suddenly it’s “too soon to speculate.”
• If it had been reversed, we’d still be seeing wall-to-wall coverage with panels on “the dangers of right-wing extremism.”

The hypocrisy isn’t subtle. It’s the whole point.

The Comedians Who Aren’t Funny

Then there’s the late-night crowd: Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, the usual suspects. These aren’t comedians anymore. They’re narrative enforcers with a laugh track.

Kimmel wasted no time turning Kirk’s death into a punchline about “right-wing violence.” He didn’t wait for evidence. He didn’t care about the facts. He cared about fitting the murder into his script. His audience clapped like trained seals, as if laughing at a dead man proves moral superiority.

These guys don’t joke about power. They protect it. They launder propaganda through comedy, so you laugh while you’re being lied to. And millions of viewers walk away thinking they’ve been told the truth, because hey — it came with a smirk and a rimshot.

Remembering the Victim

Whatever you think of Charlie Kirk, he was a man. He had a family, friends, a life. And he was targeted for his beliefs.

That makes the media’s rush to mislabel the killer even worse. They didn’t just lie to protect their narrative — they erased the victim. They refused to admit that a conservative was killed by a liberal, because that would mean acknowledging that political violence cuts both ways. Mostly theirs.

Instead, they turned Kirk into a prop. A talking point. A setup line for a monologue. That’s grotesque.

The Language Games

Pay attention to the weasel words. They matter.

• “Allegedly conservative” — used when the facts say otherwise, but the narrative needs it.
• “Unclear motive” — used when the motive is crystal clear but inconvenient.
• “Suspect with online ties to the right” — used to smear by association, while ignoring direct ties to the left.

In Kirk’s case, they had texts, family testimony, and even the suspect’s dating history pointing left. And yet headlines hedged, twisted, and suggested otherwise. That’s not sloppy. That’s deliberate.

Why It Matters

This isn’t just about one case. It’s about how millions of people form their worldview. If you only watch mainstream media, you now believe that Kirk’s killer was a conservative — the exact opposite of the truth. And you’ll never hear the correction.

That’s the trick. First impressions stick. Lies travel farther than corrections. By the time the facts come out, the public has moved on, and the false narrative has hardened into memory.

That’s how propaganda works.

The Bigger Pattern

Let’s not pretend this is an isolated failure. It’s part of a pattern:

1. A politically charged crime happens.
2. The media instantly decides who the villain “should” be.
3. They publish that version.
4. When the truth doesn’t match, they quietly walk it back — long after the damage is done.

We’ve seen it with the Covington Catholic kids, “Russian bounties” in Afghanistan, the Steele dossier, Jussie Smollett. Over and over again, the media pushes the narrative first, then hopes you forget when it collapses.

Kirk’s murder is just the bloodiest example.

The Real Danger

If they can lie this brazenly about Charlie Kirk’s killer, what can’t they lie about? Elections? Wars? Crime stats? Everything’s on the table. And once people realize the media will happily erase reality itself to protect its politics, the last shred of trust disappears.

That’s the real danger. Not just that they’re lying about one murder, but that they’re teaching people to live in two different realities: the actual one, and the one on TV.

Final Word

Charlie Kirk’s death should have united the country against political violence. Instead, it’s been turned into another circus of lies.

The shooter wasn’t conservative. He was liberal. He wasn’t some MAGA radical. He was a product of leftist rage. The evidence is there. The media knows it. They just don’t care.

Because the truth doesn’t matter. The narrative does.

And until people stop accepting the narrative, until we demand facts over spin, the lies will keep coming. Every tragedy will be turned into propaganda. And every victim — including Charlie Kirk — will be buried twice: once in the ground, and once under the weight of the media’s deceit.