JD Vance Guest Hosts ‘The Charlie Kirk Show’: A Paradox Between Media and Politics

Courtesy of Deadline

Vice President JD Vance's hosting of “The Charlie Kirk Show” is an archetype of the continual merge of politics and the media in the United States, raising the question of the selective nature of elected officials utilizing significant platforms to shape ideological narratives about the nation. 

Over the past few decades, the intersection between media and politics has undergone significant alterations. In the past, the sheer scope of information was considerably more constrained than it is today; although the breadth of information is significantly diverse in perspectives, a varied slate is not realistically what most people consume. The reason is simple: Algorithms predict what we will interact with and thus feed us with one-dimensional perspectives that reflect and reinforce existing beliefs. According to Adrienne Russell, professor of communication at the University of Washington, instead of seeking out divergent perspectives and high-quality information, most people tend to gravitate toward existing ideas that are often extreme. 

The recent murder of Charlie Kirk — husband to Erika Frantzve and father to two children, as well as a dedicated conservative activist, author and entrepreneur — has scarred a nation dealing with another case of political extremism. In today's landscape, social media has enabled the rapid proliferation of material surrounding the incident: ranging from footage of the murder to the unregulated exchange of perspectives. 

Moreover, our increasingly interconnected world has enabled politicians to share their condolences and opinions publicly, but crucially, to target audiences. Kirk was fiercely devoted to rallying the younger generation of thinkers, and he even began a widely successful venture in 2012 to achieve this aim called “Turning Point USA” — a nonprofit organization that advocates for conservative politics on high school and college campuses. 

Among such contributors to the conversation is author and former senator, as well as one of the youngest vice presidents in history, JD Vance. Following the shooting, Vance took to the public stage in an alternative manner to his fellow politicians — through the media enterprise that Kirk created, “The Charlie Kirk Show,” as a means to honor and build on Kirk's legacy for a "true friend," Vance said. 

Prior to Kirk's death, Uncommon Ad Space reported that “The Charlie Kirk Show” garnered 5.6 million monthly viewers, 7.9 million monthly page views, a 55% engagement rate, a sex demographic of 72% male and 28% female, and an age demographic of 24-56 years old, suggesting that younger males were the primary consumers of Kirk's rhetoric. 

On Sept. 15, five days following the assassination of the 31-year-old at Utah Valley University, Vance sat at his desk in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in the White House to record the episode. 

The show commenced with an honorable praise of Kirk. Vance predominantly attributed the Trump administration's success, from the nomination and election of President Donald Trump and himself, to Kirk.

Vance proceeded to host several top administration officials over the following hours, signifying the role and influence that Kirk possessed within the federal administration. 

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and a lead vocal ideologist for Trump's agenda, reflected on the last message Kirk sent him: "I think it was just the day before we lost him—was just that we need to have an organized strategy to go after the left-wing organizations that are promoting violence in this country." Miller harped on this false narrative during this opportunity on the show and added his own rhetoric, claiming that left-wing political organizations constitute "a vast domestic terror movement.” 

"We are going to use every resource we have … throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again," Miller said. Trump also made claims that radical leftist groups construct political violence in America.

However, experts in research on extremism have found that these claims remain unsubstantiated, and in fact, assert the contrary. In accordance with research done by University of Dayton professor Arthur J. Jipson, domestic terrorism in the U.S. is achieved politically by the right, and the vast majority of fatalities resulting from domestic terrorism are far-right attacks.  

Although Vance, Miller, and Trump argue that political violence is a result of liberal extremism, suggesting a strictly partisan issue, the reality is that political violence has endured in recent history on the right. Research has found that all perpetrators of deadly extremist violence in the U.S. in 2018 had links to white nationalist groups, which according to the Anti-Defamation League made 2018 “a particularly active year for right-wing extremist murders.”

In fact, evidence from the past few years has argued that a portion of Republicans believe political violence is necessary in modern America. A poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in 2023 found that a third of Republicans agreed with the statement: "Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country," whereas 13% of Democrats in the survey agreed.

The following guests on Vance’s installment of the show included White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who commended Kirk for his ability to rally college students to foster a sense of community. Subsequently, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles praised Kirk's actions as a campaign operative, attributing his actions to the administration's success. Penultimately, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. fondly recounted his first interview on the show, recalling “he (Kirk) really let me talk a lot.” The final guest was conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson, who discussed topics beyond the perceived scope of the episode's special purpose, touching on both Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Supporters of Vance's hosting viewed the opportunity as a way to not only amplify Vance's individual perspective, but also the position of the Republican ticket, as well as to energize and revitalize younger voters who were devoted to Kirk and his message. On the other hand, critics questioned whether this falls within the duties of the vice president — especially since Kirk was not an elected government official — as well as the efficacy and ethics of profiting off of a horrific incident to spread political rhetoric of any kind.  

Some speculated that Vance capitalized on the opportunity to foster alliances and solidify ties with the demographic that will be voting in the 2028 presidential election. Rather than being a guest on the show, as an interviewee would, Vance was able to set and control the agenda — an agenda that did not necessarily remain within the scope of the incident, inclusive of the implications of Kirk’s assassination. 

Vance also suggested ideas that may contradict typical notions held by proponents of free speech. Vance exclaimed, in regards to people who celebrated the slaying of Kirk, "Call them out, and hell, call their employer." Vance signaled to the American people that those who speak out should be cautious about sharing their opinions for fear of retribution. 

Vance's hosting of “The Charlie Kirk Show” reflects the normalization of elected officials presenting themselves as media hosts, challenging the very essence and nature of nonpartisan, unbiased reporting — and potentially shifting how young voters receive and synthesize information regarding their elected officials. Does this convergence increase transparency among the American public, or does it further polarize an ideologically divided nation? Understanding these intersections will be crucial to evaluating the validity and longevity of our democracy.