Crossroads Podcast: The New York Times’ Surprisingly Solid Erika Kirk Story

Photo via Instagram/Dailypatriotreport

On the day before Charlie Kirk was assassinated, CNN commentator Van Jones received a message through his X account.

The message was from Kirk.

Jones and his social-media team didn’t spot it at first. Then, in the crush after the murder, Jones didn’t know how to handle the contents of the message — since it directly addressed furious arguments about race that the two men had been having online, right out in the open.

Kirk’s message said:

“Hey, Van, I mean it, I’d love to have you on my show to have a respectful conversation about crime and race. I would be a gentleman as I know you would be as well. We can disagree about the issues agreeably.”

Jones kept the message private for several days, before going public with its contents.

At first glance, it may seem that there is little connection between that story and the New York Times feature that served as the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast, which ran with this headline: “For Erika Kirk, a Husband’s Life Cut Short by Violence He Seemed to Foresee.”

Several people asked me about that Robert Draper feature, because its tone and contents seemed so radically different from the usual combative — acidic even — Times coverage of Kirk, his Turning Point USA movement and religious conservatives in general.

In effect, some of my colleagues and readers were asking: “What happened?”

It’s easy to speculate about why newspaper editors and executives do what they do. On one level, we can say that, in this case, an editor let a veteran feature writer do what he does well — write a strong personality profile. Yes, skeptics will also say that the Times team had little to gain by, metaphorically speaking, slapping a grieving widow, the mother of two very young children.

But there is an important connection between that Kirk message to Jones and the Gray Lady feature about Erika Kirk. Hold that thought, while paying close attention to this important passage in the Times piece:

Ms. Kirk, 36, spoke in a composed voice while fighting through tears about a husband lionized on the right as an inspiration to young Republicans and pilloried on the left for his attacks on civil rights, feminism and Islam. She acknowledged her struggle to make sense of an unfathomable tragedy.

“I’m allowing myself to feel this so deeply,” she said, “without medication, without alcohol. The Lord is giving me discernment.”

She sat in workout clothes with her legs folded under her on a couch in a rented condominium in Scottsdale, Ariz. Her husband often used the condo as a way station between their home in a gated community outside Scottsdale and the Turning Point USA headquarters in east Phoenix.

Around her neck was the pendant of St. Michael that her husband was wearing when he was shot. The medics had ripped it from his body while attempting to stop the bleeding. A trace of blood remained in the crevice of the cross.

Yes, people who have followed Kirk closely in recent years will question some of the language in that typically magisterial block of paraphrased material in which the Times made strong claims about important facts without quoting any sources.

It’s true that many (not all) leaders on the religious, cultural and political right praised Kirk’s ability to serve as “an inspiration to young Republicans.” However, that’s not the real story. Most of all, they valued his unique ability to talk to centrists and even liberals (especially young men) and, every now and then, change their minds and attitudes.

Also, it’s true that liberals attacked Kirk for “his attacks on civil rights, feminism and Islam.” However, many of those attacks (not all) yanked short quotes out of context or failed to note followup remarks in which Kirk clarified his words.

When criticizing some civil rights laws, for example, Kirk didn’t attack the intentions that inspired the laws, he quoted statistics showing the negative impact that some of the programs had on Black families. I predict that Kirk and his team were more than familiar with the work of the late Democrat Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and his controversial 1965 report on trends in Black families.

The bottom line: I would argue that the most important thing to draw from that passage was the fact that — eight days after the assassination — the TPUSA team chose to grant this access to Erika Kirk. The Times report noted, right up top, that this interview lasted for an hour and a half.

Let’s assume that Draper recorded this interview. I suspect that Turning Point recorded it, as well. The professionals on both sides of this exchange were, I am sure, quite careful when arranging this exclusive interview with America’s most influential newsroom.

What made this piece remarkable? This was, quite simply, old-school journalism. The journalist asked good questions — lots of them. Erika Kirk responded with stunningly candid answers, which provided the backbone of a remarkable feature.

Why did the Kirk team grant this interview?

Doing this interview was consistent with Charlie Kirk’s history of reaching out to leaders on the other side of the chasm between red and blue America. I would argue that many other conservative groups should take a similar approach, if their leaders are sharp enough to handle these kinds of encounters (with both sides recording what happens).

This interview with the Times took place, of course, before Erika Kirk’s address at the giant, historic memorial service in Glendale, Arizona, with her stunning decision to forgive the young man who killed her husband. (Please see my “On Religion” column about that event.)

Looking back with that address in mind, two other passages in the Times feature are impossible to forget:

On the evening before Mr. Kirk traveled to Utah, he and his wife met for dinner in the Phoenix area with a friend who was a faith leader. The purpose was to pray together over Mr. Kirk’s imminent tour of roughly 20 campuses. Both Ms. Kirk and the friend were worried.

Mr. Kirk, whose appearances on college campuses drew ardent support and fierce condemnation, had received numerous death threats over the past year and had been traveling with a security team for months. Over dinner, Ms. Kirk implored her husband to start wearing a bulletproof vest. When he demurred, the friend suggested that Mr. Kirk speak behind bulletproof glass.

“Not yet,” Mr. Kirk replied. He said he felt confident in his team, and that there would be additional security at the Utah event. But Ms. Kirk, like several of her husband’s subordinates, had occasionally heard him imply that his life could be cut short by violence. She found herself wondering if a part of him had already surrendered to such a prospect.

Then there was the emotional earthquake at the very end:

In her view, a young but towering spiritual voice was silenced by a young lost soul. “I’m a strong believer that this was God’s plan,” she said. “And it’s so clear-cut. It couldn’t be more Charlie.”

She added, “I’ve had so many people ask, ‘Do you feel anger toward this man? Like, do you want to seek the death penalty?’ I’ll be honest. I told our lawyer, I want the government to decide this. I do not want that man’s blood on my ledger. Because when I get to heaven, and Jesus is like: ‘Uh, eye for an eye? Is that how we do it?’ And that keeps me from being in heaven, from being with Charlie?”

It’s a must-read story. But let’s not ignore the obvious: The Turning Point USA team made the decision to grant this interview with Erika Kirk.

Let us attend.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it on to others.