Hearts & Minds: Charlie Kirk and the end of the shared public square

When Charlie Kirk died, my 20-year-old son and 18-year-old daughter were shocked. I knew who he was, I’d read about him, I was aware he was a pivotal figure in driving the MAGA young vote. But beyond that, I admit, he did not mean much. They weren’t supporters but he was someone they followed, who polarised opinion, whose views they discussed among their friends. For teenagers and twenty-somethings, Kirk was ubiquitous – as recognisable as any pop star. Parents, in some cases, learned of the event through their children. The generational split in recognition is not new. It’s not meant to happen, though, in politics. It’s reserved for music, games, sports, memes and Greta Thunberg.

What does this tell us? That political ideas and ideologies now travel in ways that are just as siloed, as compartmentalised, as culture. We don’t share a single public square; we each carry around dozens of smaller ones, algorithmically fenced. Companies and their comms teams can’t assume common knowledge, or even single reference points, anymore. A personality who dominates one universe can be invisible in another. It means that a one-narrative-fits-all approach is not enough, nor is telling it through a sole prism, via one stage to a shared audience.

Multi-media has been with us for a while of course; we know that mainstream and social platforms must be treated differently, that they require different systems of delivery and content. But this shows it goes beyond, that the segmentation is broader and deeper, and that it’s not confined to celebrity influencers.

We need to think about how the story we want to communicate should be conveyed, how best to shape it, who should receive it. The days of calling a press conference and believing that will suffice have gone. The slick presentation, with the arc lights, rehearsed script, autocue and tightly managed questioning has its place. Likewise, the sit-down, set piece interview with the Tier 1, MSM big name reporter. It might be good for one demographic, but it’s not touching the sides of another, and if it is, it may not be in the manner we would like. Titles were selected according to who it was believed read them - chairs liked to study this or that paper over breakfast; CEOs went for another; their partners another and so on. There remains a bit around of that still. Charlie Kirk is a watershed; we must wise up.

Chris Blackhurst is one of the UK’s foremost business journalists. He was previously Editor of The Independent and City Editor of the Evening Standard.