To the editor: Whereas I’m deeply saddened by the mindless loss of life of Charlie Kirk, I imagine that MSNBC overreacted to Matthew Dowd’s feedback (“MSNBC severs ties with Matthew Dowd over Charlie Kirk feedback,” Sept. 11). His tone could have struck some as out of tune with the unhappy second, however he stated nothing so egregious or incendiary that ought to have resulted in his termination. I hear far worse on different stations day-after-day. The identical goes for language from the White Home and the halls of Congress.
Dowd additionally instantly apologized for his remarks, which is uncommon today. These feedback — which he stated have been made earlier than it was recognized that Kirk was the goal of the taking pictures — could have been borne of a frustration with this nation’s epidemic of political violence, and maybe gun violence generally. Frankly, I’m horrified by it, and I really feel that the outrage over his feedback is misplaced. A younger man has misplaced his life, and his household not has a husband and father just because he dared to specific his ideas and opinions. That’s the place our outrage ought to lie.
Kathryn Jensen, Castaic
..
To the editor: It’s the epitome of irony that persons are being fired after making feedback about Kirk’s loss of life (“After Charlie Kirk’s slaying, staff be taught the bounds of free speech out and in of their jobs,” Sept. 14). Isn’t Kirk recognized for actively selling free speech, irrespective of how repugnant? The hypocrisy is obtrusive.
Sharie Lieberg-Hartman, Manteca
