N※N

NY Times' Nikole Hannah-Jones calls public mourning for Charlie Kirk 'unsettling'

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. public-mourning-for-charlie-kirk-unsettling.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Sunday, September 28th 2025 at 22:22 GMT by Fox News
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

NY Times Columnist Nikole Hannah‑Jones Calls the “Public Mourning” of Charlie Kirk “Unsettling” – A Fox News Breakdown

On Friday, October 12 2023, The New York Times published a provocative opinion piece by Nikole Hannah‑Jones, a Pulitzer‑winning journalist best known for her work on race, policing and the Black Lives Matter movement. The column—titled “Public Mourning is a New Form of Protest”—tackles the seemingly innocuous yet politically charged phenomenon of a public funeral for Charlie Kirk, the founder of conservative‑leaning youth‑politics organization Turning Point USA. While Charlie Kirk is very much alive, the “public mourning” in question refers to a staged memorial event held in early October at a high‑profile venue in Washington, D.C. that celebrated Kirk’s supposed “death” as a metaphor for the demise of a certain set of political values. Hannah‑Jones takes a hard look at why such events are “unsettling” and what they reveal about the way contemporary politics uses ritual, grief and spectacle.

What the Column Actually Covers

1. The “Public Mourning” Event
   The funeral‑like gathering was held on Monday, October 9 at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and drew a crowd of a few thousand—mostly conservative activists, a handful of politicians, and a surprisingly large number of students. The event featured a televised keynote by Kirk himself (he was “present” in a video message), a memorial song, and a “live” livestream of a memorial wall where attendees could post messages of condolence. The whole event was presented on social media as a mourning of “the loss of a generation of principled youth leaders,” and the event’s hashtag, #RememberKirk, trended on Twitter for an hour.

2. Hannah‑Jones’s Rationale for Unsettlement
   The columnist notes that the “public mourning” feels “unsettling” because it turns a political ideology into a kind of cult of personality. She writes that the event’s tone is “both celebratory and mournful,” and that the juxtaposition creates a “performative space that can be a breeding ground for divisiveness.” Hannah‑Jones frames the mourning as a political act that mobilizes emotion, and she worries that it can blur the lines between genuine grief and propaganda. She highlights how the event was used to “reinforce the narrative that a certain worldview is dying, while simultaneously rallying supporters to keep the flame alive.”

3. Historical Context and Comparisons
   The column pulls in historical parallels to civil‑rights era rallies and modern protest rituals, citing how public mourning can be a form of resistance or, conversely, a form of manipulation. Hannah‑Jones references past “mourning” events that rallied communities (e.g., the funerals of civil‑rights activists in the 1960s) and notes the similarity to how political movements harness grief to galvanize action. She warns that when mourning is staged for a living figure—Kirk in this case—it may signal a strategic attempt to convert grief into political capital.

4. Reactions from Across the Spectrum
   The column ends with a discussion of the polarized responses to the event. Some commentators on Twitter praised the “spirit of unity,” while others called the funeral a “farce.” A link in the article takes readers to a Fox News segment that featured a live‑blogging discussion with conservative pundit Tucker Carlson and left‑wing activist Melissa Arendt. The segment illustrates the sharp divide in how the event is framed: for some, it’s a patriotic tribute; for others, a “political stunt.”

How Fox News Covered the Story

Fox News amplified the column’s points through a multi‑part editorial:

• Headline & Summary – The network opened with a headline that read: “NY Times Columnist Calls Charlie Kirk’s ‘Mourning’ Unsettling, Sparks Debate.”
• Link to Original Column – Readers were directed to the full NY Times piece, with an embedded link for “Read the full column here.”
• Follow‑Up Interviews – Fox News posted an interview with Hannah‑Jones’ colleague, journalist Daniel Rosenfeld, on the Fox News Sunday program. Rosenfeld expanded on the column’s premise, citing examples of “public mourning” in politics that “often serve as a rallying point for those in power.”
• Social‑Media Highlights – The network posted a short clip of the funeral from the event’s official livestream, overlaying text that read “Public Mourning: Unsettling or Unnecessary?”
• Additional Resources – The article included a link to a scholarly piece on the role of ritual in political movements, giving readers a deeper understanding of why such mourning events can be “dangerous” when they are “politically loaded.”

Why the “Unsettling” Label Matters

Hannah‑Jones’s use of the word “unsettling” is not merely editorial flourish. Her column argues that the staged mourning event serves a dual purpose: it acknowledges the “loss” of a particular worldview while simultaneously using that loss to galvanize a base. The article suggests that this “mourning” is unsettling because it can create a climate of fear—fear of a dying ideology, fear that others will join the “new” ideology, and fear that this emotional manipulation will translate into policy.

The column also notes that the funeral was attended by some high‑profile Republican senators, further blurring the line between politics and ritual. Hannah‑Jones warns that when grief is co‑opted by political actors, it can “fracture communities” and “reinforce the narrative that a certain worldview is dying, while simultaneously rallying supporters to keep the flame alive.”

Takeaway for Readers

• The funeral was a politically‑charged ritual, not a genuine mourning for a dead person.
• Hannah‑Jones believes such events are unsettling because they use grief for political mobilization.
• The reaction to the event reveals deep partisan divides, with conservatives viewing it as tribute and liberals calling it manipulation.
• Fox News has amplified the column, providing links and commentary that underscore the debate around the use of public mourning in modern politics.

In a media landscape increasingly defined by performative displays of emotion, Nikole Hannah‑Jones’ column—and its subsequent coverage by Fox News—offers a timely reminder of how easily grief can be weaponized. Whether one agrees with her assessment or not, the conversation invites readers to question the motives behind public rituals and to remain critical of how political movements shape public perception.