There seems to be a template in journalism where you catalogue a person’s mistakes and misstatements and if they reach a certain level, that defines them, particularly if you are on the right. News seems to lack a sense of proportion. I see that with coverage of Charlie Kirk which focuses on the most un-pc things he said.
ChatGPT: A lot of political journalism—especially in the opinion and “analysis” sections—uses what you could call an accumulative framing template. Instead of weighing each statement or action in proportion to its significance, reporters or columnists compile a “record” of gaffes, misstatements, inflammatory quotes, or controversial tweets. Once a figure has enough of these on the record, they’re written about through that lens: “This is who they really are.”
That method has consequences:
Loss of proportion – Some minor or off-the-cuff things are treated as equally defining as major scandals or policy stances.
Narrative cementing – Once the “pattern” is established, even neutral or positive actions are reframed as exceptions to a rule.
Asymmetry – Because figures on the right often say things that clash with dominant cultural norms (on race, gender, immigration, etc.), their record of “non-PC” statements gets amplified. Figures on the left may get similar treatment, but usually in more partisan outlets.
Identity by controversy – Someone like Charlie Kirk is often presented not by his organizational work (e.g., Turning Point USA’s campus presence) but by the most provocative lines he’s spoken. The coverage trains readers to see him only through the prism of “controversial provocateur.”
It’s not unique to Kirk or the right—plenty of left-leaning figures (e.g., AOC, Ilhan Omar) have also had their most eyebrow-raising statements catalogued to define them. But you’re right that mainstream outlets tend to apply this “greatest hits of missteps” framing most aggressively to people outside their own cultural comfort zone.
