Froomkin: Top News Outlets Underplay Right-Wing Declaration of War against the Left

The Times and the Post try to shoehorn the shocking statements into their both-sides framing of the Kirk shooting as a symptom of political polarization.

By Dan Froomkin Press Watch

You know what's a really big news story? That Trump and the far right declared war on the left last night.

The response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk from Trump and a slew of right-wing influencers was absolutely terrifying.

Trump ascribed Kirk's murder to "radical leftists" who "compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis" and he vowed to "find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity, and to other political violence" and make them stop.

Ironically, by threatening to punish opponents for their political speech, it was one of the most Nazi things Trump has ever said.

And he was sedate compared to some of the people who influence him.

Mother Jones took this news seriously, with an article headlined "'THIS IS WAR': Some Right-Wing Figures Call for Retribution Following Kirk Killing" by Anna Merlan, Julianne McShane, and Kiera Butler.

They reported that, for instance, Trump confidant Laura Loomer called for the administration to "shut down, defund, & prosecute every single Leftist organization." They reported that Elon Musk posted that "The Left is the party of murder."

Wired took the news seriously, with an article by David Gilbert headlined "'War Is Here': The Far-Right Responds to Charlie Kirk Shooting With Calls for Violence." Among the responses he noted was that of Infowars host Alex Jones, who declared "This is a war, this is a war, this is a war."

By contrast, the New York Times and the Washington Post underplayed this news dramatically, trying to shoehorn it into their both-sides framing of the incident as a symptom of political polarization.

In the New York Times article headlined "Charlie Kirk Assassination Raises Fear of Surging Political Violence," Richard Fausset, Ken Bensinger and Alan Feuer tried to equate the left and the right:

On social media, it was easy to find left-wing posters reveling in Mr. Kirk's death and suggesting he got what he deserved. On the right, initial expressions of grief and shock were overtaken by open calls for political reckoning and vengeance. There were ominous proclamations that the country was on the brink of civil war — or should be.

As it happens, for those who kept reading, the actual reporting made clear where the threat lies. For example:

Matt Forney, a right-wing journalist known for racist and misogynistic content, called Mr. Kirk's assassination "the American Reichstag fire," alluding to the 1933 fire at the German Parliament building that was used by the Nazi party as a pretext to suspend constitutional protections and arrest political opponents.

"It is time for a complete crackdown on the left. Every Democratic politician must be arrested and the party banned," Mr. Forney wrote on X.

Also in the Times, Maggie Haberman empathetically framed Trump's comments as an emotional response to the attempts on his life, rather than as an unhinged attack on the opposition.

In the Washington Post article headlined "America enters a new age of political violence" Naftali Bendavid almost completely ignored the fact that far-right wing figures were literally calling for war.

In a soft-focus Post story on the White House reaction headlined "In Trump's White House, Charlie Kirk's killing is deeply personal," Michael Birnbaum and Emily Davies referred to Trump's rage-filled speech as "a tribute video".

None of the coverage I saw contrasted Trump's comments with what one would expect from a normal president at a time like this: A message of unity, and a call to rise above all political violence -- not a demand for revenge.

What Trump said. It's worth studying exactly what Trump said. Here a transcript of part of the speech, (which was clearly written by Stephen Miller.)

It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible.

For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity, and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.

From the attack on my life in Butler, Pennsylvania last year, which killed a husband and father, to the attacks on ICE agents, to the vicious murder of a healthcare executive in the streets of New York, to the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and three others, radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.

Those are fighting, not healing, words.

How others covered it. In the Associated Press article headlined "Assassination of Charlie Kirk adds to America’s roll call of public violence," Lisa Mascaro and Ali Swenson briefly noted that "Online, certain far-right figures responded with anger and pointed blame. And so did Trump." But by and large, the AP ignored the incendiary response from Trump and the right.

One exception to the rule in the corporate media was a short article in USA Today by Josh Meyer, headlined: "'Martyr for truth.' Trump vows vengeance against 'radical Left' for Charlie Kirk killing."

And some kudos to Reuters. Its article headlined "Death of Charlie Kirk Lays Bare Deep US Political Divisions" started off with a decidedly both-sides bent, but reporters James Oliphant, Bo Erickson and Trevor Hunnicutt soon enough pointed out the imbalanced reactions:

[Kirk’s] death left many of his fellow conservatives seething and blaming liberals for the assault, while Democrats largely kept to a more reserved tone, decrying political violence generally and again calling for stronger gun laws.

The article included this marvelous example of how to point out irony drily:

Trump - who routinely refers to his political rivals as "radical left lunatics" who he warns represent an existential threat to America - called the shooting an outgrowth of overheated rhetoric.

A better response to Trump. Here’s Jonathan Chait, writing in the Atlantic on “Trump’s Dangerous Response to the Kirk Assassination”:

If you did not listen to Trump’s remarks, which have received only light attention from the media, you might have missed the chilling message they contained. Trump may have sounded like he was deploring violence and calling for unity. In reality, he did the opposite.

And he concludes:

The president of the United States is treating the political opposition as accessories to murder and threatening to use the full power of the government to attack it.

Yes, that’s a big news story. It deserves more attention.

Subscribe to media critic Dan Froomkin’s “Press Watch” newsletter here.