FOX BRIAN KILMEADE SAYS WE SHOULD KILL HOMELESS PEOPLE
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
The analyses confirm that Fox News host Brian Kilmeade did make statements suggesting that mentally ill homeless people should be killed. Multiple sources verify that Kilmeade said "just kill 'em" in reference to mentally ill homeless individuals [1] [2]. The context for these remarks was during a discussion about a fatal stabbing incident [3].
Following widespread condemnation, Kilmeade issued a public apology, describing his comment as an "extremely callous remark" [1] [2]. In his apology, he acknowledged that not all mentally ill homeless individuals are violent and stated that many deserve empathy and compassion [1] [3]. The incident generated significant backlash across multiple news outlets [1].
The sources indicate that Kilmeade's comments were made during what appears to be a live broadcast discussion, and the remarks were captured and reported by major news organizations including CNN, CBS News, and People magazine. The apology came after the comments had already been widely circulated and criticized.
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original statement lacks several crucial pieces of context that provide a more complete picture of the incident. First, the statement omits that Kilmeade's comments were specifically about mentally ill homeless people, not homeless people in general [1] [2]. This distinction, while not excusing the remarks, provides important specificity about the target of his comments.
The statement also fails to mention that these comments were made in the context of discussing a fatal stabbing incident [3], which may have influenced the heated nature of the discussion. While this context doesn't justify the remarks, it helps explain the circumstances under which they were made.
Most significantly, the original statement completely omits Kilmeade's subsequent apology and acknowledgment that his remarks were wrong [1] [2] [4]. This represents a substantial omission that changes the narrative from an unrepentant statement to one where the speaker recognized and publicly apologized for his error.
One analysis suggests that Kilmeade's comments reflect a broader trend of demonizing homeless people rather than treating them with compassion [5]. This viewpoint frames the incident within a larger societal context of how homeless individuals are discussed in media and politics, suggesting systemic issues beyond just one person's remarks.
The sources also reveal that Kilmeade's apology included recognition that many homeless people deserve empathy and compassion [1], indicating some level of understanding about the harmful nature of his original comments.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original statement contains significant bias through selective omission of key facts. By presenting only Kilmeade's inflammatory remarks without mentioning his apology, the statement creates a misleading impression that he stands by these comments without remorse or correction.
The all-caps formatting of the original statement suggests an attempt to sensationalize the information rather than present it objectively. This formatting choice indicates potential bias toward generating outrage rather than providing balanced information.
The statement also lacks temporal context - it doesn't indicate when these events occurred or provide the sequence of events (original comments followed by apology). This omission prevents readers from understanding the full timeline and current status of the situation.
Furthermore, the statement oversimplifies the target of Kilmeade's comments by saying "homeless people" rather than the more specific "mentally ill homeless people" that the sources confirm [1] [2]. While both formulations describe reprehensible comments, the lack of precision suggests either careless reporting or intentional amplification.
The framing also ignores the broader context of media accountability - the fact that the comments were widely condemned and that the speaker felt compelled to apologize suggests that such views are not mainstream or acceptable, even within conservative media circles. This context is entirely absent from the original statement, creating a skewed representation of both the incident and its reception.