On today's CNN This Morning, host Audie Cornish declined to say that celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk was inappropriate or merited criticism.
Instead, with heartless detachment, Cornish simply observed what others are saying on the matter.
"I know what people don't think is appropriate, so here's an example. The New York Post puts images of someone that they're saying is celebrating his death, and I know people criticize that."
Audie can't say that celebrating murder is inappropriate, that it's worthy of criticism? Really?
Cornish isn't even sure that the people quoted in the NY Post article are celebrating Charlie's death. Only that the Post is saying that. Let's have a look at some of the statements quoted in the article:
- A Naples, NY teacher posted on Facebook: “Good riddance to bad garbage.”
- A teacher at Fort Bragg, NC, in a Facebook post, called Kirk a "garbage human. I won't mourn for him for one second . . . F- that guy."
- A teacher in Greenville, SC wrote: "America became better today. There, I said it."
- A teacher in Oskaloosa HS in Iowa wrote: “1 Nazi down.”
- A teacher in Pasadena, TX wrote: "1 down. Now get the rest of these fools."
- A teacher in Baytown, TX wrote: "Could this have been the consequences of his actions catching up with him?”—accompanied by a cutesy, smirking bitmoji.
- An "intervention specialist" in a school in Cleveland, OH wrote she hopes Kirk “never finds rest and always suffers in eternity.”
C'mon, Audie, go out on a limb and say those statements are not "appropriate," are in various ways "celebrating" Charlie's death, and should be criticized.
Meanwhile, panelist Antjuan Seawright, a Democrat strategist, said:
"Being angry has been a selling point for some on the right. And bringing out the anger, frustration, and confusion has been politically successful for some."
Do we really need to cite to Seawright any of the countless examples of people on the left "being angry" and using it as a "selling point?"
Seawright also condemned conservatives for "selective empathy," the notion being that they're more upset over Kirk's death than they would be for someone that they don't agree with. Would Seawright like to compare expressions of "empathy" made by liberals over Kirk's death compared to their empathy over the death, for example, of George Floyd?
Seawright strangely said that conservatives' alleged selective empathy is "counterproductive for universal consciousness."
Wow! I tuned into a CNN panel discussion, and a Bill Murray Caddyshack clip broke out!
Here's the transcript.
CNN This Morning
9/12/25
6:13 am EDTAUDIE CORNISH: All right, joining me now in the group chat, Noel King, co-host and editorial director of the Today Explained podcast, CNN political commentator Brad Todd, and Democratic strategist Antoine Seawright. All right, you guys, thank you so for being here.
It's been obviously a very difficult week. I know what people don't think is appropriate, so here's an example. The New York Post posting images of someone that they're saying is celebrating his death, and I know people criticize that.
ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT: I think part of this is what I said a few weeks ago on this program. It's much easier to be angry than it is informed. And being angry has been a selling point for some on the right. And bringing out the anger, frustration, and confusion has been politically successful for some. And we're seeing that play out. I think the broader frustration I have seen to this point is selective empathy and limitations on compassion, and those two things tend to be very counterproductive.
CORNISH: Selective empathy, what do you mean by that? And Brad, I want you to jump in.
SEAWRIGHT: Because the outrage I see from my friends and others online for the Charlie Kirk shooting is a lot different than we saw from the Minnesota assassination or the Buffalo shooting, or in my case, the Charleston, South Carolina shooting. We didn't see this kind of response from some on the right. It was almost like business as usual.
And now, because it happened to someone they agree with, or in line with their politics, we've seen a different response. And I think that's counterproductive for universal consciousness.
. . .
The only thing is, Charlie Kirk was a big fan of free speech, but now we have some essentially saying free speech is a bad thing. So again, it's counterproductive, and I think it's selective based on what you feel is right for you and your crowd. And I think that's where the problem is, and that's where we have to the line.
