We Should Condemn Political Violence First and the Media Second

This is a perspective from the Center.

Following a second assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, a familiar criticism appeared on social media: the left-wing media are at fault for the rhetoric they use around Trump—calling him dangerous, a threat to democracy, comparing him to Hitler.

A similar comparison can be drawn from the other side—as bomb threats take root in Springfield, Ohio, liberals blame the supposedly racist right-wing media for amplifying false stories about Haitian immigrants eating pets. 

We should condemn divisive and sensationalist rhetoric on the right and left that can lead to instances of violence, but we should first condemn those who committed the violence and make clear that their choices were theirs alone. 

Words are not violence, and individual writers and media outlets should not be blamed for horrific acts of violence they would never condone. That also doesn’t mean they aren’t a part of the problem. 

It may be unsurprising, as someone who works at AllSides, that I do not want to let the media on the left or right off the hook. When the first Trump assassination attempt happened at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, I covered right-wing critiques of how the media covered Trump in the past:

• Former Democratic Congresswoman (now an independent working with Trump’s campaign) Tulsi Gabbard said, “The assassination attempt on President Trump is a logical consequence of repeatedly comparing him to Adolf Hitler. After all, if Trump truly was another Hitler, wouldn’t it be their moral duty to assassinate him?”
• Andy Ngo, editor at The Post Millennial (Right bias), stated, “The killing comes after years of the far-left urging for Trump to be assassinated to fight ‘fascism’ and ‘save democracy.’”
• David Reaboi, a fellow at the Claremont Institute (not rated, but runs a media platform called The American Mind, which AllSides rates as Lean Right), cited the June 2024 magazine cover of The New Republic (Left bias), which depicts an altered image of Trump with a Hitler-like mustache and facial features alongside the headline, “American Fascism: What It Would Look Like,” and said, “I didn’t hear anything about “civility” when this came out 6 days ago.”

By and large, I don’t disagree with their criticisms. I think the way the media has covered Trump has often been sensational and unfair in the name of “protecting democracy.” And yet, I am uncomfortable with the fact that the first reaction to an almost-assassination was to cudgel The New Republic rather than to condemn the shooter himself.

This cycle of blame repeats again and again. A day after the latest attempt on Trump’s life, Trump released a list of quotes from Democratic politicians and said their rhetoric inspired another assassination attempt. But like the first shooter, what we know of Ryan Routh’s politics is ambiguous. One can condemn politicians' extreme rhetoric while also acknowledging that there's no direct evidence this particular shooter was inspired by or listened to any of them. So it’s misleading to say, as Trump does, that they “egged on” or “inspired” the shooter. Most people who see extreme rhetoric would never commit violence over it; violent people are violent for other, deeper reasons than their partisanship.

Yet the left engages in extreme rhetoric as well—amidst bomb threats in Springfield, Ohio, some accuse the right of racism for amplifying the story about Haitian immigrants to begin with. This includes assuming the worst of commentators, like accusing Rich Lowry (Right bias) of the National Review (Right bias) of using a slur when referring to the Haitian immigrants in what was more than likely a mispronunciation of the word “migrants.” 

It’s possible that Haitian immigrants have captured and eaten geese, but no evidence has shown any to have eaten pets. The amplification of such a claim, even after the woman who originally started the rumor took her social media post down and apologized because she lacked proof of the claim, is in my opinion bad journalism.

However, while bad journalism should be called out and journalists should be held accountable, by no means are outlets covering the claim responsible for bomb threats. 

Many of these kinds of accusations were leveled at the media after the Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs in 2022. Voices on the left linked the shooting to what they saw as anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from figures on the right. The claims from the left bothered me because they ignored the nuance that a plurality of LGBTQ people are also conservative and may listen to some right-wing figures. (I know several gay Republicans who do so.) Millions of Republicans and fans of Republican figureheads are not violent and hold no hate in their hearts. To cast an entire portion of the country as hateful turns up the temperature and polarization rather than turning it down. 

So what’s the right balance to strike between holding the media accountable and not blaming the other side inappropriately for violence? 

1. Hold the media accountable every day, not just when a crisis occurs.
   My entire job is predicated on holding the media accountable for its bias, sensationalism, and divisive rhetoric daily. We can call out bad journalism before violence happens, rather than only when it comes to a head. 
2. Don’t react, do a post-mortem.
   It may be beneficial to lay out examples of media bias and extreme rhetoric to illustrate how we got here, to this moment of violence. In which case, we ought to lay out the examples at least 24 hours after the event. The first focus should be on letting people process the events, establish the facts of the situation, mourn if needed, and call for peace. Allow a moment for unity, cooling off, and gathering thoughts before adding your analysis to the events. It shows good faith and avoids accusations of blame if there is first an expression of regret that the violence happened before naming the problems that led to it. 
3. Focus on individual actions. Don’t generalize.
   Instead of saying. “Right-wing influencers and media double down on anti-LGBTQ rhetoric,” talk about the specific thing that was done, and by whom: “Rep. Lauren Boebert said ‘the Left is grooming our kids’ in response to a teacher using LGBT flag flashcards.”
4. Be discerning in the language you use and how you frame your concerns.
   Be sure to note when you think rhetoric has contributed to an environment in which political violence is possible. Words don’t equate to violence. Don’t accuse someone (or some media outlet) of directly inspiring violence if they did not make a direct call to violence. Blame is divisive, not useful, and can indirectly cyclically fuel violence. Be conscious also of what change you are calling for—blame will ensure the other side will not hear you nor change their actions. We also do not want to have a chilling effect on free speech and people’s ability to state their beliefs. Whether the goal is to provide a neutral picture of how this happened or to actively convince one side to change their rhetoric, the framing must be accessible and inviting to that side as opposed to accusatory. 

It comes down to this: violence is not a pawn. It should not be used as a political “gotcha” toward those we disagree with. To use it as such is to neglect the gravity of the situation and ultimately deny the humanity of the victims.

Clare Ashcraft is the Bridging Coordinator & Bias Analyst (Center bias).

This piece was reviewed by Julie Mastrine, Director of Marketing and Media Bias Ratings (Lean Right bias) and News Editor and Product Manager Evan Wagner (Lean Left bias).