Reporting on diversity issues in the news business
ArticlesFeature

WaPo’s Karen Attiah: I Was Fired Over Kirk Posting

by richard01250

One of Few in Mainstream Protesting ‘Canonization’
. . . ‘Political Violence’ Shouldn’t Be the Only Narrative
Nominations Open for J-Educator Promoting Diversity
Judge Bars Crowd-Control Agents From Targeting Journalists

“Democracy Dies in Darkness, but some of us will still carry on the light,” Attiah wrote under this photograph. She was referring to the Post’s slogan, adopted in 2017. (Credit: Karen Attiah)

One of Few in Mainstream Protesting ‘Canonization’

 Karen Attiah, calling herself the last remaining Black full-time opinion columnist at The Washington Post,  said Monday that the newspaper has fired her over a posting on Charlie Kirk.

Attiah was one of a small but growing number of journalists who have been speaking out against the efforts of President Trump and a surprisingly dominant narrative in the news media that many have said “canonizes” Kirk, the right-wing provocateur whose killing has prompted soul-searching about political violence but also the downplaying of his racist and repugnant views.

“Now I am being silenced by the Washington Post for — *checks notes* Lamenting America’s acceptance of apathy towards political violence and gun deaths — especially when the violence is encouraged and carried out by white men,” Attiah wrote on Bluesky.

She added on Substack, “I was the last remaining Black full-time opinion columnist at the Post, in one of the nation’s most diverse regions. Washington D.C. no longer has a paper that reflects the people it serves. What happened to me is part of a broader purge of Black voices from academia, business, government, and media — a historical pattern as dangerous as it is shameful — and tragic.”

A Post spokesperson declined to comment, calling it a personnel matter, and pointed to its Policies and Standards, including its social media policy.

The editorial pages of the Post, where Attiah worked, are under new management. Adam O’Neal, 33, a correspondent from The Economist, was chosen in June as the section’s latest opinion editor.

O’Neal’s hiring followed a February declaration by Post owner Jeff Bezos that the newspaper’s opinions section would now be focused on “personal liberties and free markets” and would not publish anything that opposes those ideas. With that shift, opinions editor David Shipley resigned, with several staffers, including columnists Eugene Robinson, Jonathan Capehart and Perry Bacon Jr., following.

Columnist Colbert King remains at the paper but plans to leave, citing health issues, and Keith Richburg, another Black journalist, is on the editorial board. Others are in the Sports and Business sections.


Karen Attiah, then Washington Post global opinions editor, speaks with Germany’s Deutsche Welle on Oct. 28, 2018. Attiah edited the last piece Jamal Khashoggi wrote for the newspaper, shortly before he was killed. She discussed “what Khashoggi expressed to her about his hopes and fears as a Saudi journalist,” DW said. (Credit: YouTube)

Attiah might be best known “for raising her voice and using the power of her pen to bring attention to and offer ongoing coverage of the murder of fellow Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi,” in the words of Sarah J. Glover, former president of the National Association of Black Journalists, which in 2018 named Attiah “Journalist of the Year.”

“Khashoggi was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Attiah’s reporting of Khashoggi’s death helped bring international coverage to the political persecution he faced as a journalist, which caused him to flee Saudi Arabia in 2017. Her work also inspired ongoing global dialogue about protecting the role of the free press,” Glover said in announcing Attiah’s selection.

Attiah wrote Monday on Substack:

“As a columnist, I used my voice to defend freedom and democracy, challenge power and reflect on culture and politics with honesty and conviction.

“Now, I am the one being silenced — for doing my job.

“On Bluesky, in the aftermath of the horrific shootings in Utah and Colorado, I condemned America’s acceptance of political violence and criticized its ritualized responses — the hollow, cliched calls for ‘thoughts and prayers’ and ‘this is not who we are’ that normalize gun violence and absolve white perpetrators especially, while nothing is done to curb deaths.

“I expressed sadness and fear for America.

“My most widely shared thread was not even about activist Charlie Kirk, who was horribly murdered, but about the political assassinations of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman, her husband and her dog. I pointed to the familiar pattern of America shrugging off gun deaths, and giving compassion for white men who commit and espouse political violence. This cycle has been documented for years. Nothing I said was new or false or disparaging — it is descriptive, and supported by data.”

Attiah also wrote, “My commentary received thoughtful engagement across platforms, support, and virtually no public backlash.

“And yet, the Post accused my measured Bluesky posts of being ‘unacceptable,’ ‘gross misconduct’ and of endangering the physical safety of colleagues — charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false. They rushed to fire me without even a conversation. This was not only a hasty overreach, but a violation of the very standards of journalistic fairness and rigor the Post claims to uphold. . . . “

Attiah outlined how readers can express their support, including by signing up to join the fall session of Race, Media and International Affairs 101+102 — a series of lectures and conversations with prominent guest speakers.

Two days before Charlie Kirk was killed, “CNN NewsNight” host Abby Phillip and commentator Van Jones were among those disputing Kirk’s allegation that the fatal stabbing of a Ukrainian refugee on a train in Charlotte, N.C., was racially motivated. (Credit: YouTube)

. . . ‘Political Violence’ Shouldn’t Be the Only Narrative

Much of the alarm Karen Attiah voiced is also being expressed on social media, but a portion is finding its way into mainstream news organizations.

Jamelle Bouie in The New York Times; Leonard Greene in the Daily News in New York; Elie Mystal, Elizabeth Spiers and Joan Walsh in The Nation and Frances (Toni) Murphy, DMin., the CEO and publisher of the Afro in Baltimore, are some of those voicing alarm.

“There is no requirement to take part in this whitewashing campaign, and refusing to join in doesn’t make anyone a bad person. It’s a choice to write an obituary that begins ‘Joseph Goebbels was a gifted marketer and loving father to six children,” Spiers wrote for The Nation.

Murphy (pictured) wrote Thursday, “Murder is wrong. Always. No ideology, no political disagreement, no personal offense can justify extinguishing a human life. Students and staff who witnessed the chaos will carry that trauma forever. Kirk’s wife and two young children must live with a grief no family should bear. Assassination is barbaric and indefensible.

“But if we stop there, we miss the deeper truth.

“Charlie Kirk was no martyr for freedom. He was a provocateur whose rhetoric leaned heavily on racist falsehoods. He dismissed diversity, equity and inclusion programs as ‘anti-White.’ He claimed White privilege was a ‘myth.’ He denounced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a ‘huge mistake.’ He even reversed his praise of Martin Luther King Jr., later calling him ‘awful’ and a ‘mythological anti-racist creation.’

[Kirk also said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would be a better role model.]

“Kirk also promoted the so-called ‘Great Replacement’ theory — the White nationalist idea that demographic change in America is an intentional plot to reduce White influence. ‘The “Great Replacement” is not a theory, it’s a reality,’ he declared. Those words emboldened prejudice, spread division and threatened the dignity of millions of Americans.

“Kirk’s ideology was dangerous and rooted in racism. His assassination does not erase that truth. Violence doesn’t end hate; it deepens it, handing extremists a martyr. . . . “

Despite Murphy’s truth, “Within 24 hours of Charlie Kirk’s killing, an assistant dean at a Tennessee college, a communications staffer for an NFL team, a Next Door employee in Milwaukee, and the co-owner of a Cincinnati barbecue restaurant were fired after posting about it,” Taylor Telford reported Friday for The Washington Post.

Mystal (pictured) added in the Nation: “The purging of media voices unwilling to venerate the hateful, racist career of Kirk has already begun. MSNBC fired analyst Matthew Dowd, who said in response to the shooting: ‘Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.’ Telling the truth on television is never the smart career move.”

Dowd wrote Friday, “The Right Wing media mob ginned up, went after me on a plethora of platforms, and MSNBC reacted to that mob. Even though most at MSNBC knew my words were being misconstrued.”

In the Baltimore Sun,  Jean Marbella wrote Saturday, “The statements and posts that have led to firings have ranged in tone, from rude, profane and disrespectful to others that raised the issue of Kirk’s own harsh statements against groups such as Jewish people, whom he accused of trying to replace white Americans with immigrants, and Black people, calling Martin Luther King, Jr., ’awful,’ and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘a diversity hire.’ “

Bouie wrote, “Kirk’s eulogists have praised him for his commitment to discourse, dialogue and good-faith discussion. Few if any of them have seen fit to mention the fact that Kirk’s first act on the national stage was to create a McCarthyite watchlist of college and university professors, lecturers and academics. Kirk urged visitors to the website to report those who ‘discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.’

Two months ago, Roland Matin “rips racist college drop Charlie Kirk for DEI attacks on Black fire chief,” according to the video description. (Credit: YouTube)

The list, which still exists, is a catalog of speech acts in and outside the classroom. The surest way to find yourself on the watchlist as an academic is to disagree, publicly, with conservative ideology, or even acknowledge ideas and concepts that are verboten among the far right. And the obvious intent of the list is made clear at the end of each entry, where Kirk and his allies urge readers to contact the schools and institutions in question. Targets of the watchlist attest to harassment and threats of violence.”

Journalism professor Stacey Patton, Ph.D., (pictured) one of those so victimized, wrote her own account about what that has meant for her. “Every time an oppressor falls, the world wants the oppressed to perform grief. Why? Because it’s part of the script of domination that demands the targets of hate honor their abusers,” she wrote.

Bouie continued, “The Professor Watchlist is a straightforward intimidation campaign, and you can draw a line directly from Kirk’s work attacking academics to the Trump administration’s all-out war on American higher education, an assault on the right to speak freely and dissent.

“To speak of Kirk as a champion of reasoned discussion is also to ignore his frequent calls for the state suppression of his political opponents.

“ ‘Investigate first, define the crimes later’ should be the order of the day,” Kirk declared in an editorial demanding the legal intimidation of anyone associated with the political left. ‘And for even the most minor of offenses, the rule should be: no charity, no goodwill, no mercy.’ . . .

“It is also important to mention that Kirk was a powerful voice in support of Trump’s effort to ‘stop the steal’ after the 2020 presidential election. His organization, Turning Point USA, went as far as to bus participants to Washington for the rally that devolved into the Jan. 6 riot attack on the Capitol.

“And then there is Kirk’s vision for America, which wasn’t one of peace and pluralism but white nationalism and the denigration of Americans deemed unworthy of and unfit for equal citizenship. . . . ”

Yet it is not that kind of analysis that Is finding favor in most of the news media — or with the public.

“Kirk’s main Instagram account has added 3.5 million followers since the assassination; his podcast’s TikTok account has gained more than 1.5 million followers; and his main Facebook page has added more than 2.3 million followers,” Brian Stelter wrote Saturday  for CNN.

“On YouTube, Kirk’s primary channel now has 4.5 million subscribers, up from 3.8 million before he was killed. Here’s my full story for CNN.com about the data.

“I spent a while this morning watching the YouTube videos and reading the new comments that have piled up by the tens of thousands since the shooting at Utah Valley University. This was the takeaway: The vast majority of the most-liked comments about Kirk’s death are mournful — not full of rage or fomenting calls for revenge, like some far-right influencers have expressed in other forums, or bashing Kirk, like some on the left have.

“One more note: Kirk’s website has also introduced a new product to its online store, a T-shirt that says ‘I AM CHARLIE KIRK.’ Those four words have become a rallying cry among Kirk fans on social media platforms since his death. . . .”

So where does that leave the media?

“If it turns out that Kirk’s murderer did voice some nominally progressive views, it’s still the fact that 75 percent of political murders have come from the extremist right in the last decade, according to the ADL Center on Extremism,” Walsh wrote for The Nation, with a perspective missing in most of the coverage.

Syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette (pictured), writing under the headline, “Charlie Kirk Should Be Mourned, but Not Canonized,” made another point.

“Many of the same conservatives who are furious over Kirk’s murder and calling for empathy and compassion for their fallen hero and those who loved him can’t seem to muster any empathy or compassion for thousands of Latino migrants being rounded up like cattle.”

Wrote Greene in the Daily News, “When former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman, her husband, Mark, and their dog were killed in their home in an attack that Minnesota’s chief federal prosecutor called an assassination, there were no lowered flags, no medals of freedom, no lengthy presidential eulogy.

“Trump didn’t even go to their funerals. That day, he played a round of golf.”

Rene Syler (pictured), veteran broadcaster and media coach, wrote on Facebook, “I was a broadcaster for more than 30 years. I know how newsrooms work. That’s why what I’m watching unfold right now is so chilling.

“With the death of Charlie Kirk, we’re already seeing legacy outlets rush to recast him as some kind of ‘champion of free speech’ or at the very least, downplay many of his harmful positions. Let’s be clear: his rhetoric wasn’t noble debate (Not referring to his college tours but his podcast and speeches/shows). It wasn’t free speech in the sense of democratic exchange.

“It was speech weaponized, designed to endanger anyone who wasn’t white, straight, Christian, conservative and male. For those communities, his words were not ideas tossed into the marketplace; they carried real weight and influence.(If you are not a part of these communities you will have a difficult time understanding this, which is exactly why you were clutching your pearls when communities of color didn’t show, according to you, the appropriate response to his death).

“The Wall Street Journal’s recent blunder proves the point. They ran with a story erroneously linking Tyler Robinson to ‘transgender ideology,’ ” referring to the suspect. “When the facts didn’t hold, they retracted. But the damage was already done, as it always is.

“This is a critical time, and we need truth-tellers. People willing to say plainly what legacy outlets won’t: Charlie Kirk’s words harmed people. His influence wasn’t benign. And to pretend otherwise dishonors the people he targeted. He may have been a good man to his family, but he was not to mine.

“The truth matters.. to all of us.”

Julian Rodriguez of the University of Texas, Arlington, accepts the Barry Bingham Sr. Fellowship award in 2015 at the Association of Opinion Journalists Symposium, held at the Poynter Institute. (Credit: John McClelland/YouTube)

Nominations Open for J-Educator Promoting Diversity

Beginning in 1990, the Association of Opinion Journalists annually granted a Barry Bingham Sr. Fellowship — actually an award — “in recognition of an educator’s outstanding efforts to encourage minority students in the field of journalism.”

Journal-isms assumed stewardship of the award last year, handed the baton from the News Leaders Association, which absorbed the now-defunct Association of Opinion Journalists but in 2024, itself dissolved.

Since 2000, the recipient had been awarded an honorarium of $1,000 to be used to “further work in progress or begin a new project.”

This will be the first such award under the new affiliation.

Past winners include James Hawkins, Florida A&M University (1990); Larry Kaggwa, Howard University (1992); Ben Holman, University of Maryland (1996); Linda Jones, Roosevelt University, Chicago (1998); Ramon Chavez, University of Colorado, Boulder (1999); Erna Smith, San Francisco State (2000); Joseph Selden, Penn State University (2001); Cheryl Smith, Paul Quinn College (2002); Rose Richard, Marquette University (2003).

Also, Leara D. Rhodes, University of Georgia (2004); Denny McAuliffe, University of Montana (2005); Pearl Stewart, Black College Wire (2006); Valerie White, Florida A&M University (2007); Phillip Dixon, Howard University (2008); Bruce DePyssler, North Carolina Central University (2009); Sree Sreenivasan, Columbia University (2010); Yvonne Latty, New York University (2011); Michelle Johnson, Boston University (2012); Vanessa Shelton, University of Iowa (2013); William Drummond, University of California at Berkeley (2014); Julian Rodriguez of the University of Texas at Arlington (2015); David G. Armstrong, Georgia State University (2016); Gerald Jordan, University of Arkansas (2017), Bill Celis, University of Southern California (2018); Laura Castañeda, University of Southern California (2019); Mei-Ling Hopgood, Northwestern University (2020); Wayne Dawkins, Morgan State University (2021); Marquita Smith of the University of Mississippi (2022), and Rachel Swarns of New York University (2023).

Nominations may be emailed to Richard Prince, who chairs the awards committee, at richardprince (at) hotmail.com. The deadline is Oct. 15.  Please use that address only for Bingham fellowship matters.

Feel free to urge others to write supporting letters for your nominee, especially if they are students or former students of the person you favor.

Officers from the Department of Homeland Security fire less-lethal weapons at protesters who gathered in response to immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles on June 6. (Credit: Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Judge Bars Crowd-Control Agents From Targeting Journalists

“Arguing that the 1st Amendment ‘demands better,’ a federal judge barred federal agents from targeting reporters and nonviolent protesters with crowd control weapons,” Libor Jany reported Thursday for the Los Angeles Times.

“Lawyers for the city of Los Angeles and Homeland Security have argued that policing the chaotic demonstrations requires rapid decisions about when to use less-lethal force, and that it isn’t always possible to immediately recognize journalists.

“But U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera was unmoved, extending Tuesday restrictions he first ordered in July on the use of less-lethal weapons at street protests. Vera wrote that federal officers ‘unleashed crowd control weapons indiscriminately and with surprising savagery.

“ ‘Indeed, under the guise of protecting the public, federal agents have endangered large numbers of peaceful protestors, legal observers, and journalists — as well as the public that relies on them to hold their government accountable,’ Vera wrote in the 45-page opinion.

“The judge issued a similar injunction Thursday in a separate lawsuit filed against the Los Angeles Police Department over continued allegations of excessive force against members of the press covering the demonstrations.

“In August, less than a month after Vera issued his temporary restraining order limiting the use of force, at least three reporters covering a protest were left bruised and bloody after being struck by officers’ batons. . . .”

 

 

Loading

Related posts

Will Baltimore Sun End ‘Work-From-Home’?

richard

‘We Wanted to Do What We Could to Insure That the Voices of Black Columnists Would Speak the Loudest . . . ’

richard

‘A Healthy, Legal Conduit for My Rage’

richard

Leave a Comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.