Media cant handle the truth about Tyler Robinson and foolish Jimmy Kimmel fell for the spin

Jimmy Kimmel probably didn’t affirmatively lie about the politics of Charlie Kirk’s killer — he just didn’t know what he didn’t know. In the monologue that got him suspended by ABC, the late-night show host averred, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.”This was so flagrantly wrong and so woefully misinformed that it would have been a firing offense if Kimmel were a journalist.We can assume Kimmel’s defense would be that he’s trying to be Johnny Carson and not Edward R.Murrow, yet he long ago made himself into a quasi-political commentator.The deeper question is: Why did Kimmel have no idea what he was talking about, as someone who makes a very good living following the news and trying to make jokes — or at least pointed comments — about it?Kimmel was presumably misled by the legacy media’s unwillingness to be forthright about Tyler Robinson’s motive, and by the obfuscations of Democratic officeholders and progressive commentators.If he thought he was trusting the trusted sources, he made a grievous error. Because the Kirk assassination doesn’t fit the preferred narrative of a hateful right-winger committing an act of violence — rather, the complete opposite — there hasn’t been a national crisis-level wave of concern about the motive of the suspect and its potential sources.Instead, much of the press acts as if it is grappling with an epistemological problem of the depth and subtlety that led to the German physicist Werner Heisenberg arriving at his uncertainty principle in the 1920s (that is, it’s impossible to determine both the exact position and velocity of a particle at the same time).Reporting on the Kimmel imbroglio, The New York Times wrote: “Prosecutors said Mr.
Robinson had written in private messages about Mr.Kirk’s ‘hatred,’ but the authorities have not identified which of Mr.
Kirk�...