Piers Morgan Accuses Candace Owens of Lying for Money Over Charlie Kirk Assassination Coverage
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Ben Shapiro Attacks Conservative Figures at Turning Point USA After Charlie Kirk Memorial Sparks Massive Backlash
50:26
John Mappin Investigates Who Killed Charlie Kirk and the Unanswered Questions Behind His Assassination
59:30
Michael Franzese Questions Candace Owens Motivation in Charlie Kirk Assassination Investigation and Erika Kirk Controversy
57:32
Piers Morgan Accuses Candace Owens of Lying for Money Over Charlie Kirk Assassination Coverage
Piers Morgan and Candace Owens clashed in a viral showdown on his show Uncensored, where Morgan directly accused Owens of fabricating claims about Charlie Kirk's assassination to boost her YouTube numbers. The heated exchange centered on Morgan's belief that Owens lacks sufficient evidence for her assertions, while Owens pushed back, comparing the situation to JFK assassination coverups and insisting she won't stop asking questions. Owens revealed she gave Erika Kirk two specific names of people inside Turning Point USA she suspects had foreknowledge of the attack, though she refused to make those names public without concrete evidence. The confrontation highlights a broader credibility crisis and what some are calling the rise of "vibe journalism" in media.
Piers Morgan and Candace Owens engaged in a heated confrontation on Morgan's show Uncensored, with Morgan directly accusing Owens of lying to boost her YouTube numbers regarding her coverage of Charlie Kirk's assassination. The clash centered on Morgan's skepticism about Owens making assertions without what he considers sufficient evidence.
Morgan also questioned why Owens and Erika Kirk decided to meet behind closed doors instead of proceeding with the originally planned public meeting moderated by Megyn Kelly. Owens explained that Turning Point USA was probably right in suggesting they should lower the temperature first before having a public confrontation.
Candace Owens Pushes Back
Owens firmly pushed back against Morgan's accusations, stating she believes the public is being fed what she calls "Fed slop" similar to what happened with the JFK assassination. She made it clear she won't be treated as if asking questions is the crime, emphasizing that the real crime was Charlie getting shot in the neck.
Owens went further, stating she wouldn't be surprised if there were people inside Turning Point USA who had foreknowledge of Charlie's assassination. She revealed she gave two very specific names to Erika Kirk for further investigation but refused to release those names publicly to Morgan. She acknowledged she does not have concrete evidence and, given that they are private citizens, releasing their names didn't feel right.
The Money Question
During the exchange, Morgan accused Owens of extrapolating the entire saga for clips and money. He pointed to various media figures, including Tim Pool and the New York Post, who have made similar claims about Owens's coverage of the Kirk assassination.
Owens defended herself by questioning how exactly she was making more money, asking whether she had signed a new advertiser, was reading more ads, put content somewhere else, or sold merchandise. She argued that she was already globally popular before Charlie was assassinated and suggested it would be absurd to think she would want her friend killed just to go from being in the top five to number one.
When Morgan pointed out that driving more views on YouTube translates to more money, Owens downplayed the significance, saying "money on YouTube" dismissively, as if the platform wasn't a major revenue source. However, the reality is that she is likely making millions of dollars from YouTube, with her podcast probably generating three to five times that amount.
The Credibility of the Money Argument
While Owens has a point that she didn't break brand deals specifically because of the Charlie Kirk coverage, and that some brands have actually stepped back from advertising when her topics become too controversial, the viewership argument remains valid. Higher views do make selling advertisements easier and increase revenue across the board.
A stronger argument for Owens would be to acknowledge that yes, covering controversial topics that capture public imagination does generate revenue, but that's because the public is hungry for someone willing to ask difficult questions outside the elite establishment bubble. Rather than denying the financial component, embracing it while focusing on the veracity of her claims would provide a more solid defense.
The Rise of Vibe Journalism
This confrontation highlights what some observers are calling the rise of "vibe journalism" - a new form of media entertainment where personalities navigate by gut instinct and emotional conviction rather than traditional journalistic standards. Owens appears to believe her instincts represent truth, with friends coming to her in dreams and revealing information, creating a worldview where feeling something strongly makes it true.
This approach mirrors some of the same logic Owens has criticized in other contexts, such as the "I feel like a woman therefore I am a woman" argument. It demonstrates how humans can be victimized by their own emotions, becoming convinced that feelings equal reality.
The Broader Implications
This exchange represents more than just a clash between two media personalities. It illustrates a broader credibility crisis regarding official sources and the emergence of alternative forms of media that prioritize emotional resonance and audience engagement over traditional journalistic standards.
The key question moving forward is what will happen when the facts of the case emerge through the legal system. When Tyler Robinson goes to trial and the justice system renders its verdict, will Owens update her position based on evidence, or will she maintain her conspiracy theories regardless of what facts emerge? Her response to core claims versus satellite claims will reveal whether she's genuinely pursuing truth or simply building an entertainment empire on the back of tragic events.
Time will tell whether this new model of "vibe journalism" represents a necessary disruption of corrupt establishment media or simply a more emotionally manipulative form of the same old game.
