There’s media bias, and then there’s the kind of narrative contortion that leaves audiences wondering whether basic moral lines still exist. ABC News reporter Matt Gutman’s coverage of the texts allegedly sent by Tyler Robinson — the suspect charged in the assassination of Charlie Kirk — falls squarely into the latter category.
Faced with messages that prosecutors say describe the weapon, the preparation, and the motive, Gutman chose to highlight the “duality” of a confessed killer who also wrote tender notes to a partner. His on-air characterization — “very touching,” “a very intimate portrait” — landed like a thunderclap for viewers who expected clarity about violence, not a romance treatment of it.
The backlash was swift. Sen. John Kennedy, in a segment with Laura Ingraham, distilled the public’s reaction in one sentence: “Touching? The guy murdered a human being.” Kennedy’s broader point was less about one reporter and more about a media habit — the reflex to humanize the perpetrator while the victim’s family is still identifying remains and the crime scene is still being processed. It’s a pattern audiences recognize: language that softens the killer’s edges, academic laurels recited like character witnesses, and a focus on the perpetrator’s “humanity” that arrives long before the press has fully confronted the brutality of the act.
Kennedy suggests ABC News reporter needs a shock collar after gushing over Charlie Kirk shooter’s text messages to his lover.
Points out the media is to blame for the state of politics in the country, noting social media in particular has “lowered the cost of being an a-hole.” pic.twitter.com/Ke1VXRyTke
— Rusty (@Rusty_Weiss) September 17, 2025
The stakes here are not semantic. When a political figure is shot in front of students, and casing inscriptions allegedly read “Hey fascist! Catch!”, motive isn’t an abstraction — it’s part of the public’s safety calculus. Critics argue the legacy press has spent years dehumanizing prominent conservatives as “Nazis” and “fascists,” and that this rhetorical tinderbox creates conditions in which violence becomes thinkable. Against that backdrop, leading with the killer’s “loving” texts doesn’t just misread the room; it risks laundering ideology through sentiment.
Even some within mainstream outlets have pushed back on attempts to recast the episode as anything other than political violence. CNN’s Scott Jennings, for example, forced a panel back to the evidentiary record: messages, charging documents, and the suspect’s own words indicating he targeted Kirk for his beliefs. What frustrated viewers was the contrast — the same media environment quick to strip conservatives of nuance suddenly discovering bottomless reservoirs of it for a man accused of assassination.
Gutman’s defenders might say he was acknowledging complexity. But there’s a difference between complexity and conflation. Journalism can hold two truths without blurring them: human beings contain contradictions, and some commit evil. The ethical order matters. Naming the crime, its apparent motive, and its consequences comes first. If there’s a time to unpack the perpetrator’s psyche, it’s after the public understands what happened and why. Inverting that sequence looks less like nuance and more like narrative rescue.
Compounding the unease is Gutman’s track record — prior suspensions at ABC for policy violations and a high-profile misreport during the Kobe Bryant tragedy — which critics say makes this latest framing more than a one-off lapse. Fair or not, credibility is cumulative, and so are wounds to public trust.
Kennedy pointed to a broader culprit, too: social media’s incentive structure. Rage performs. Outrage travels. And the cost of dehumanization has collapsed. The result is an ecosystem where the loudest labels stick, and the line between rhetoric and reality thins — sometimes to a trigger pull. That context doesn’t absolve individuals of responsibility; it does challenge the press to meet the moment with moral clarity.
