Trump’s first response was disapproval of the question: “That was not supposed to be one of the questions… we had a very nice sequence of questions.” But then he did, surprisingly, drum up an answer. “I fully think apologizing is a great thing, but you have to be wrong,” he said. “I will absolutely apologize, sometime in the hopefully distant future, if I’m ever wrong.”
Democratic officials also have learned not to apologize but no one has perfected the art of denial and claiming perfection as well as Donald has, and he has been elected President of the USA twice. Enter Matthew Dowd, who was interviewed by MSNBC host Katy Tur approximately 3:00 p.m. eastern time on September 10 soon after reports about the shooting of Charlie Kirk. And so
In part, he theorized whether the incident was “a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration.”
Dowd said Kirk had 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," Dowd said. "And I think that is the environment we are in."
He added, "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."
So far, so good, an objective, rational individual would conclude. Dowd was expressing a reasonable opinion, one which reflected the reaction of many people to the assassination. He might have survived that, but then made an uncommon error. He actually expressed regret and took responsibility.
My thoughts & prayers are w/ the family and friends of Charlie Kirk. On an earlier appearance on MSNBC I was asked a question on the environment we are in. I apologize for my tone and words. Let me be clear, I in no way intended for my comments to blame Kirk for this horrendous attack. Let us...
— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd.bsky.social) September 10, 2025 at 5:33 PM
As The Guardian noted, Dowd "served as chief strategist for George W Bush's 2004 presidential campaign and was formerly a political analyst for ABC News." He should have known better. Instead, MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler issued on X a statement reading
During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. We apologize for his statements, as has he. There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.
Then Dowd was fired. He was fired, apparently, because while there is- regrettably- a place for violence in America, there is little place for freedom of expression, as responses to responses about the murder have illustrated.
Yellow-bellied Kuttler did not maintain that Matthew Dowd had said anything inaccurate nor vitriolic. He had said something insensitive, perhaps because we had not yet learned definitively that Kirk had been hit, yet alone died. Kutler believed it was "inappropriate," which could have been for any number of reasons, justified, unjustified, or even illegitimate and found it "unacceptable," which was obvious because he was dismissed.
He could be fired in part because he had admitted error and in the absence of him defending his own remarks, few if any would defend him, nor criticize MSNBC for sacking him. (The British have a way with words.)
What Kutler didn't claim was that the analyst had said anything inaccurate nor vitriolic, worth repeating because it is fundamental to an individual's statement. Vitriol can exacerbate a situation and is an extreme expression of insensitivity.
Even that, however, is not central to the matter. (And it's a good thing that our President hasn't set the standard in vitriol.) Accuracy is, or at least should be.
Were Dowd's words accurate? Probably, but we'll never know because in honoring an individual exercising freedom of expression, the search for truth has been abandoned.
Facts are becoming irrelevant. And in a society in which truth is optional, the assertion of rightness holds sway. As argued here, "it's long been apparent that people demanding public apologies aren't actually interested in forgiveness or whether what the person says is actually true... they want submission." Whatever people or the media (especially the media) may claim, the public "tend to still quite reasonably assume that if someone apologizes, then they must have done wrong and should be punished."
"Reasonably" does a lot of work here. Nonetheless, "never apologize, never explain" is an aphorism understood well by Donald Trump, evidently better than any public figure in American history. Matthew Dowd, apparently an individual with a sense of integrity, does not, or at least did not before this episode.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment