No surprise from the Federalist, but this article shows clear bias and doesn't accurately represent the whole story. Charlie Kirk's life undoubtedly contained impressive and impactful elements, regardless of one's opinion on his political beliefs, such as his grassroots organization and the significant impression he has made on conservative youth. With this in mind, the article is troubling because it only focuses on the positive aspects without commenting on the controversial or inflammatory elements of Kirk's life and career. There was a large mix of emotions in the country following his assassination, some expressing joy about his public murder. I believe it is sick to celebrate the execution of a man for his political beliefs, but this article ignores the fact that many Americans did not mourn his death, as demonstrated by social media following the assassination. The article is one-sided and points to Kirk's achievements as to why he deserved the Person of the Year award from TIME magazine, without considering why TIME would not choose Charlie Kirk. Additionally, it provokes the population that understands Kirk was sometimes inflammatory, and his assassination doesn't necessarily mean he should be revered or martyred. Also important to consider is the hill that this author is fighting for, Person of the Year on TIME magazine, which was awarded to Adolf Hitler in 1938. The insignificance of the award and the clear bias from the author demonstrate an intentionally provocative article containing myriad instances of selection and omission bias.