Let’s face it, we’re all victims of doom scrolling. But at the end of the day, anyone can post, and the capitalization of political media is an everyday reality. You may have encountered clips such as the Jubilee debate video contesting who will win— “20 leftists versus conservative figure Ben Shapiro.” Three scrolls later there’s a controversial clip of Charlie Kirk debating students at a college campus. Can’t forget the occasional clips of a political candidate speaking, edited to fit the poster’s partisan bias like a glove. This is not to fearmonger, this is to accurately grasp the world around us. If your sole source of news information and politics is from social media, it's more likely than not that you have been exposed to misinformation. The worst part is that you're not alone– 62% of 541 adults surveyed by ‘Media Literacy Now’ reported having no opportunity in high school to reflect on how media affects their beliefs, feelings, and actions. In the digital age, political agendas can be easily pushed with the lucrative yet oh-so-addicting social media algorithms. As a result, homogeneous-minded individuals are garnered, creating political echo chambers. And the consequence? A new norm, which happens to be a highly polarized United States of America.
Let me make this clear– not everything on social media is fake or inherently bad. It was created to cultivate connections, after all. I know I definitely get some of my political news via Instagram and TikTok, but I tend to listen to reputable creators or journalistic institutions that provide images of where their sources and statistics are coming from in their posts. On top of that, I mostly fact check what I see online through credible sources such as the New York Times, or statistics from federal government websites. Because in actuality, how much truth do we know is coming out of a one minute clip on social media? The more controversial the video is, the more engagement is driven, bolstering the algorithm to recommend it to more people.
How Charlie Kirk has a chokehold on misforming American social media users:
I will be heavily focusing on content creator Charlie Kirk, who debates students on political matters at college campuses as a part of his Turning Point USA campaign. His debates have gained widespread attention as highlighted by Robert Draper, author of the New York Times article “How Charlie Kirk Became the Youth Whisperer of the American Right”. Draper notes that “Kirk’s debate snippets went viral, garnering as many as 50 million views, according to TikTok data. Kirk’s account would end up drawing more followers than the accounts of Fox News, Carlson, Vance and the Harris campaign. According to a national survey done by TikTok, the platform’s users under 30 who voted for Trump trusted Kirk more than any other individual”. The problem here? Millions of people are listening to him more than anyone else, despite him lying about statistics and making false claims. Evidently, Kirk provides a notion of trust amongst his many viewers, but I’ll get into how that notion isn’t always truthful. I’ve seen many online comments and clips of supporters saying they have no scruples on what he says because he is ‘well spoken and intelligent’ plus ‘knows what he’s talking about’. I will admit that from time to time he’ll make claims that make some sense. But this is rare, and is mainly because he’s debating a student that doesn’t know much about the topic at hand. But when it comes to truth, history, and the details that accompany the political matters he discusses with so much gusto– how much does he really know?
In a video curated by award-winning journalist Garrison Hayes, Hayes responds to Kirk’s statements from a Jubilee debate video. Kirk claims “Blacks are 13%-14% of the population, but half of all prisoners are Black. So Blacks commit more crimes than whites do. They commit more murders, arsons, and kidnappings.”. Hayes refutes him by correctly stating that “According to the federal government, only 38% of all American prisoners are Black, but it makes you wonder why Kirk feels the need to add an additional 12% to the Black prison population. Could it be because his bigoted talking points only work if he exaggerates things?" This all goes back to what I was saying before with polarization– people believe staggering points made by Kirk and many others like him because they are carefully crafted to win you over. But plainly, these kinds of claims distract from the nuances that coat the reality of the issue. Now, Charlie Kirk is allowed to have his own political views. Yet, it is problematic that he is twisting real facts and statistics, stating them so confidently that people will genuinely take this information at face value, without doing critical thinking. Hayes additionally notes that Kirk fails to acknowledge that Black people are the most susceptible race to being accused of crimes they did not commit. Moreover, there’s only published stats on arrests and convictions, we’ll never know the true numbers on crimes that anyone committed, regardless of race. But the catch here is that Garrison Hayes is a journalist, which means legally he cannot print or state falsehoods– it’d be against his job. Social media commentators such as Charlie Kirk can freely exercise numerous liberties, which results in more people consuming his exaggerated and controversial content. And unfortunately, as I previously stated, this false or exaggerated talk tends to be recommended more by the algorithm. Because of this, it’s important to remember that politics is more than what a social media video tells you it is. It exists out of the digital void– It’s real life.
Dismantling some of Kirk’s flawed arguments:
Now, you might be thinking that one stat he lied about isn't too bad, since we all make mistakes. However, that action reveals a lot of insight on Charlie’s Kirk’s character, and how a lot of this is very intentional. You may not know that he has stated numerous times on his channel that he believes that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a “mistake”, and how to him it is a law with good intentions, but that over time has been destructive to America as it has given rise to the “cult of anti-racism”. In Kirk’s words “[The act] has tragically metamorphisized into a beast that has even more hatred than some of the elements of the antebellum South”. I hope we can all agree that the modern day in no way compares to the immorality of beating, selling and purchasing human beings as property in the antebellum South. Historian Dr. Edward O’Donnell made a video addressing Kirk’s claims, saying “So prosecuting racial discrimination in employment, housing, education and law enforcement is more hateful than slavery?” Kirk is completely correct in that the Civil Rights Act did not eradicate racial injustice; racism undoubtedly continues. However, upon watching several of his channel videos, Kirk seems to be more concerned with anti-racism, and how he believes people of other ethnicities are being granted unfair privileges in employment and college admissions. To him, the existence of DEI creates more prejudice. Not every societal issue can be blamed on racial discrimination, but it’s important to understand real history before sharing out far-leaning opinions. Although slavery has existed since ancient times, racial-based identity and slavery weren't much of a thing until colonial chattel slavery was introduced in the sixteenth century. This became an integral component of the triangular trade route that deposited African slaves in the Americas, while also creating a shift to generational slavery. No kind of slavery is correct, but adding race to it only created hardships and discrimination amongst racial minorities, with this becoming deeply woven into the history of the United States. On that note, Black people shouldn't be defined solely by the history of slavery that their race lived through, and I’m not supporting the idea of individuals victimizing themselves just because they felt like it. I'm supporting those who share the true, gruesome history not to beg for sympathy, but to educate, offering remembrance and humanity for those who have been persecuted due to discrimination. Colson Whitehead's book The Nickel Boys provides an incredibly eye-opening example of this, which I highly recommend reading to understand a very unsung part of the United States’ history.
In addition to the Black community, many other groups including Indigenous Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and Asians, throughout history have fought against these issues with resilience and a passionate drive for representation, and continue to do so today. Yet unfortunately under the current Trump administration, societal reforms such as DEI have been attacked. Admittingly, DEI isn’t perfect and won’t solve every problem in the realm of race. Nevertheless, its validity still deserves to be discussed, as it is a valuable effort that has helped countless individuals. One could argue it promotes skin color being a ‘factor’ in employment, but it’s more so used as a medium of inclusion, based on merit, despite many falsely arguing that diversity and institutional excellence are a dichotomy. By instead encouraging eclecticism, institutions can become celebratory of all perspectives and people, creating an intellectually rich and strong environment upheld by the pillars of diversity. Returning to Kirk, he claims that he supports meritocracy, which I can get behind. But he also sees diversity as “not a strength”, which I cannot get behind, because… that’s just not true? Diversity and institutional excellence are not mutually exclusive. Just because someone is not white doesn’t mean they aren't qualified. There are requirements, specific schooling, rigorous testing, and experience needed to land specific jobs. If someone has successfully completed these, they are likely qualified for the job.
In terms of college admissions and DEI, the theme of socio-economic status and race is common. But perhaps by allowing minorities and students from working-class families into more colleges, an individual with valuable and insightful ideas might be able to attend a school they otherwise never would’ve been able to, due to acceptances favoring other groups. I’m not saying we should admit students with 2.0 GPAs into Ivy Leagues just because they’re a minority, but that deserving students, and ones with high potential, should be given opportunities that many privileged students get. Bringing different people from different places all together, and agreeing on policies for the good of the people is how we can make real change, not by promoting a singular group.
Ultimately, while meandering through all this fast-paced political mainstream that we encounter almost every day, it can be easy to forget the malleability of our minds. And given Kirk’s millions of viewers, it is highly concerning how many minds, of all ages, are being unknowingly exposed to his harmful and misinformed rhetoric.
Polarized media leads to political echo chambers:
With that dopamine rush that social media secretes, it can get addicting to watch these entertaining, controversial political videos. As a result, it’s common for young people to find trust in these videos and claims. As stated by Tufts University research center director Kei
Kawashima-Ginsberg, “Young people, more than older voters, typically rely on people in their communities whom they trust. That could help explain the influence of internet personalities… who endorsed [Trump] on the eve of the election”. Consequently, the act of sharing, liking, and reposting political content transforms ‘For You’ pages into political echo chambers that people seek comfort in. As discussed in the article “How the American Media Landscape is Polarizing the Country” by current communications manager Flavia Roscini, “These algorithms skew the variety of information people encounter online in favor of information that only supports personal beliefs. As a result, ‘filter bubbles’ may be formed and society may be more polarized ideologically, as it is less exposed to divergent viewpoints”. I myself have witnessed these political echo chambers by viewing a couple of my peers’ political reposts on TikTok during this past election season. Much of this reposted content I was seeing was similar to Kirk’s ideology– ignoring the realities of issues, and instead focusing on questionable stats and edited clips of candidates that clearly lacked context. Frankly, individuals posting misinformed or deceiving content combined with the easy ability of audiences to share and repost is causing serious repercussions. The amount of misinformed content that rides the wave of social media is now reaching larger and larger audiences– and at a quicker rate.
This is increasingly problematic, given the fact that this plays a crucial role in voter turnout. In Draper’s article, he includes a quote from Kirk saying “We registered tens of thousands of new voters and delivered the youth vote in record numbers”. With society’s short attention spans and high screen time levels, one can only wonder how many people instinctively trust what they see online, and how that played into who they decided to vote for. According to a study cited in an academic journal published by the Journal of Media Literacy Education, “70% of 200 high school students trusted sponsored content over a science news article on the topic”. Undoubtedly, this needs to be addressed and changed.
Is our democracy shattered? What changes should be made?
Incidents such as the capitol riot of January 6th, 2021 which exacerbated from misinformation spread online about election fraud illustrate our fragmented democracy. Despite this, I want to stress that the largest issue at hand is not that social media exists. Surprise-surprise, the biggest issue isn’t even that people like Charlie Kirk are posting what they are. The development of social media and what creators choose to post is mostly beyond our control. The largest problem is the United States’ widespread lack of media literacy and fact-checking skills– because that is something that is within our control. All ages should be encouraged to fact check their news and take time to research politics and history, and we should continue fighting to provide better education for all– especially in underprivileged communities. With insight from academic journals, credited news sites and university studies, one is bound to be a more informed individual. Additionally, to further educate the population, media literacy education should be implemented into school curriculum starting from middle school. This will provide students with strong fact-checking, critical thinking and awareness skills. By starting at the ripe pre-teen age when opinions on these kinds of topics initiate, media-literacy programs can prevent kids from having rigid, misinformed views.
As a part of the bigger picture, it helps to ensure that this country remains a civil, informed democracy. The ancient Greeks believed that a democracy needs to be educated, skeptical, and a literature populace. Despite them having some differences compared to today (for example… this mainly applied to free and wealthy men in ancient times), these same core principles should be leveraged and adjusted to modern standards and be applied to the society of the United States of America’s– not be a forgotten zeitgeist from ancient times.
So, how exactly does media literacy education improve society? Well, a pilot study conducted by the Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in Iran compared results between a control and intervention group of students that participated in a three-session media literacy education program, each group with participants of similar kinds of school and ages, with scores being out of 5. According to the study, the intervention group’s pre-test mean score and standard deviation was 0.67±0.42, rising all the way to 2.87±0.87 by the second post-test. With the standard deviation initially being 0.42, most students' scores were clustered around that low mean score. The deviation then upped to 1.13 in the first post-test, demonstrating an increased dispersion of scores– some lower and some higher than the average score. However, it dipped to 0.89 by the second post-test. This indicates the actual average score steadily increased, with the data becoming closer to the mean. In plain words, the students are retaining the knowledge after each session of the program, as shown in the increased results. In contrast, the control group’s mean score and standard deviation started off at 0.64±0.56 in the pre-test, barely rising to a mere 0.66±0.57 by the second post-test . As stated in the study, “The low levels of students’ knowledge about media literacy, as detected in the pre-test phase of this study, imply the lack of related educational programs in our country and students’ need for such essential programs”. In an ever-evolving world of media and information, it’s about time we nurture the minds of today, fostering a stronger future for all. By implementing fact-checking and media literacy education in the future, hopefully the word ‘democracy’ doesn’t have to be followed with ellipses and a question mark.
Works Cited
Bruce Gaultney, Ira, et al. "Political Polarization, Misinformation and Media Literacy." Journal of Media Literacy Education, vol. 14, no. 1, 19 May 2022, https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2022-14-1-5.
Draper, Robert. "How Charlie Kirk Became the Youth Whisperer of the American Right." The New York Times, 10 Feb. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/magazine/charlie-kirk-american-right.html.
Geraee, Narjes, et al. "Impact of Media Literacy Education on Knowledge and Behavioral Intention of Adolescents in Dealing with Media Messages According to Stages of Change." Journal of Advances in Medical Education and Professionalism, vols. 3,1, Jan. 2015, National Center for Biotechnology Information, PubMed Central, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4291508/.
Hayes, Garrison [@garrisonh]. “Charlie Kirk Got a Lot Wrong about Crime Data *and* Black People in This Jubilee Video. But That’s to Be Expected. So… Let’s Talk About It.” Instagram, 24 Sept. 2024, www.instagram.com/garrisonh/reel/DAQz3J9PRZ2/.
"National Survey Finds Most U.S. Adults Have Not Had Media Literacy Education in High School." Media Literacy Now, 2022, medialiteracynow.org/nationalsurvey2022/.
O’Donnell, Edward. “Did You Hear What Charlie Kirk Said About the Civil Rights Act?” YouTube, 12 Feb. 2024. www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9T2uRVv9xQ.
Roscini, Flavia. "How the American Media Landscape Is Polarizing the Country." The Pardee Atlas Journal of Global Affairs, Boston University, sites.bu.edu/pardeeatlas/advancing-human-progress-initiative/back2school/how-the-american-media-landscape-is-polarizing-the-country/.
Schuppe, Jon, and Kalhan Rosenblatt. “Yes, Trump Improved with Young Men. But He Drew Young Women, Too,” National Broadcasting Company News, NBCUniversal News Group, 7 Nov. 2024, www.nbcnews.com/politics/yes-trump-improved-young-men-drew-young-women-rcna179019.
Turning Point USA. “Charlie Kirk DEBATES College Student on Diversity.” YouTube, Aug 1. 2024, www.youtube.com/shorts/mzNSRAiO3AM.
Turning Point USA. “Charlie Kirk Explains How DEI Programs CREATE Prejudice and Racism.” YouTube, 18 Apr. 2024. www.youtube.com/shorts/1-3_5B-aBi8.
Posted in response to the challenge Democracy & Ethics – Writing.
Comments
Log in or register to post comments.