When the credits rolled on CNN's New Year's Eve special on 31 December, Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen intended to honour those who had passed away during 2025—including celebrated director Rob Reiner and legendary actress Diane Keaton.
What they may not have anticipated was the firestorm that would ignite across social media when conservative media personality Charlie Kirk appeared alongside these beloved cultural figures in the network's 'In Memoriam' segment.
Poignant in Memoriam on CNN New Years Eve . Better than the Emmys or Oscars pic.twitter.com/i6qmM185al
— Jeff Storobinsky (@JeffStorobinsky) January 1, 2026
The inclusion of Kirk, who was fatally shot during an appearance at Utah Valley University in September 2025, provoked swift and vocal backlash from viewers who took to X to express their dismay.
The reaction laid bare a profound tension: could a figure reviled for statements regarded as both anti-Black and anti-LGBTQ be honoured alongside venerated entertainers without stoking controversy? For many, the answer was unequivocally no.
The Outcry: Why Kirk's Inclusion Sparked Such Outrage
Across social media, the condemnation was swift and unsparing. 'No way they did a tribute for Charlie Kirk. SMH! #cnnnye,' one user posted, whilst another questioned, 'The f---k was with that Charlie Kirk sneak? #cnnnye #cnn.' A third user, seemingly bewildered by the decision, shared a reaction image paired with the caption, 'Charlie Kirk during that segment... #cnnnye,' featuring Cardi B's now-infamous viral expression of surprise.
The overwhelming sentiment suggested that many viewers felt Kirk's presence in the memoriam segment represented a grave editorial misjudgement.
Yet the reaction was not universally negative. Some users defended CNN's decision, arguing that honouring Kirk—regardless of his controversial views—represented an act of journalistic integrity. 'Have to give Props to #CNNNYE for including Charlie Kirk in their Memoriam of people we have lost this year,' one X user tweeted, suggesting that the network's editorial choice, however contentious, demonstrated a commitment to acknowledging all deaths without prejudice.
The Controversial Legacy: Understanding Kirk's Polarising Public Record
The visceral nature of the backlash cannot be divorced from Kirk's public statements and positions, which had long positioned him as a deeply divisive figure within American political discourse. In 2023, whilst addressing a conference, Kirk articulated what he termed a 'very, very radical view' regarding civil rights legislation.
'We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s,' he declared, a statement that struck many as extraordinarily provocative given the law's foundational role in American history.
The Civil Rights Act of 1965 stands as one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in American history, prohibiting discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, and national origin whilst dismantling legal segregation. Kirk's objection centred on what he characterised as the law's creation of a 'permanent' bureaucracy devoted to diversity and inclusion initiatives—framing antidiscrimination mechanisms as governmental overreach.
His critique did not stop at policy; he also condemned civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr, labelling him 'awful' and claiming he was 'not a good person'—statements that many found to be deeply troubling given King's transformative legacy.
Beyond his positions on racial justice, Kirk had also articulated contemptuous views towards the transgender community, characterising gender identity issues as a 'mental illness' requiring 'brain treatment.'
These statements, taken together, painted a portrait of a public figure whose worldview stood in stark opposition to the civil rights protections and cultural inclusivity that many modern viewers hold dear.
Navigating the Grey Zones of Memorial Coverage
The incident raises an enduring editorial question for news organisations: when commemorating public figures whose legacies are contested or whose statements have caused genuine harm, how should networks approach the 'In Memoriam' format? CNN's decision to include Kirk suggests that the network applied a simple litmus test—he was a public figure who died in 2025, and therefore merited acknowledgement.
Yet for many viewers, the presence of a controversial activist in a segment ostensibly devoted to honouring the recently deceased felt incongruous, even offensive, regardless of the journalistic reasoning behind the inclusion.
The controversy surrounding Kirk's memoriam slot ultimately reflects a broader societal reckoning with how we remember contested figures in public life. Whilst all deaths deserve acknowledgement, the specific context of honouring the departed—particularly when presented alongside universally beloved entertainers—carries weight and cultural significance that cannot be ignored.
For CNN, the episode served as a cautionary reminder that editorial decisions made with sound intentions can, when they intersect with contemporary social sensibilities, spark unexpected and profound criticism.
