Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]


** OPINION
------------------------------------------------------------


** The haunting reach of political violence online
------------------------------------------------------------
A well-wisher places flowers at a makeshift memorial set up at Turning Point USA headquarters after the shooting death at a Utah college on Wednesday of Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old founder and CEO of the organization. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

As news spread Wednesday afternoon that right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk had been shot, many went to social media to learn more.

A quick scroll and anyone could see actual cellphone video of the moment Kirk was shot. The footage was from a distance, and really, one could only make out Kirk’s body going limp.

It didn’t take long, however, for a second video to come across people’s feeds — one with a much closer view of Kirk. This video was disturbingly graphic. Deeply unsettling. And it came without warning so that by the time a user realized what they were watching, they’d already been exposed to the horrific reality of what happened. Even those not looking for the video could have — and likely did — easily come across it.

It was hard to watch and impossible to forget.

The New York Times’ Sheera Frenkel and Kate Conger reported ([link removed]) that from the time Kirk was shot to the time that he was pronounced dead two hours later, videos on X of him being shot had more than 11 million views. The two reporters added that, “The graphic footage, which showed Mr. Kirk’s neck wound in high resolution, had also spread to Instagram, Threads, YouTube and Telegram, where they amassed millions of views and were repackaged with graphics and old footage of Mr. Kirk.”

Many sought out the videos purposefully, but many others saw them accidentally. It seemed almost all exposure occurred on social media. As far as I can tell, no major news outlet showed the unedited second video. In fact, most of them stopped short of the actual moment Kirk was shot, and all of the ones I saw came with a “graphic content” warning.

The Associated Press’ David Bauder wrote ([link removed]) about how exposure to such videos has changed in the era of social media:

“For more than 150 years, news organizations like newspapers and television networks have long been accustomed to ‘gatekeeping’ when it comes to explicit content — making editorial decisions around violent events to decide what images and words appear on their platforms for their readers or viewers. But in the fragmented era of social media, smartphones and instant video uploads, editorial decisions by legacy media are less impactful than ever.”

Each social media platform has a different policy in terms of showing violence, but the sheer number of uploads and shares of the video likely outpaced each platform’s bandwidth for having them removed. By Thursday, however, it was much more difficult, although certainly not impossible, to find the video.

For the millions who saw it though, the image continues to haunt. Any killing, caught on video or not, is horrific. But actually seeing it in-person likely elicited a more powerful visceral reaction.

Emerson Brooking, the director of strategy at the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the Atlantic Council, told the Times, “This is the first time such a widely recognized figure has been murdered in such a public way and spread this way on social media. Because of that, I think unfortunately this is a viral moment with tremendous staying power. It will have lasting consequence for American political and civic life.”

It’s also likely to impact individuals in a very personal way.

My colleague, Poynter’s managing editor Ren LaForme, wrote this powerful piece: “The human cost of witnessing violence online.” ([link removed])

LaForme also found that no major news outlets showed the graphic videos of Kirk being shot. He wrote, “Some say this makes mainstream media seem out of touch, even condescending. If the clip is already on social media, why not show it, too? That misses the point. Journalists draw lines for a reason. We know how trauma seeps in through a screen. We know that immediacy without context is its own kind of harm. Social media has no such restraint. It promises unfiltered access, but without guarantees of truth and without protection from harm. The cork is off the bottle, and everything spills out: real or fabricated, searing or false. At a time when more Americans are tuning out credible news for social media, it’s worth remembering that they’re leaving behind not just reporting, but the discipline of restraint.”

LaForme later adds, “That is why journalistic restraint still matters. Someone has to decide what should be witnessed and what scars can be spared. If every act of violence becomes inescapable, what does that do to a nation’s soul?”


** Poynter’s 2025 Bowtie Ball: Join us Nov. 15
------------------------------------------------------------

Celebrate Poynter’s 50th anniversary at the 2025 Bowtie Ball, honoring Jane Pauley alongside Dean Baquet and G.B. “Garry” Trudeau. This signature evening brings together civic leaders, journalists and supporters to champion a free press. Secure your spot now for an unforgettable night of recognition and community in Tampa.

Get tickets ([link removed])


** Trump’s reaction
------------------------------------------------------------

The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman wrote ([link removed]) about President Donald Trump’s reaction to Kirk’s death.

She reported that Trump was in shock when he first heard the news. She added, “But by Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump’s shock had turned to fury. In a video address from the Oval Office, Mr. Trump declared it a ‘dark moment for America’ and faulted the media and the ‘radical left’ for language used to describe people like Mr. Kirk. ‘For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals,’ said Mr. Trump, who one day earlier had been face-to-face with protesters in Washington who called him Hitler. ‘This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.’”

On Thursday, Trump seemed to send mixed messages. He said he wanted his supporters to respond with “nonviolence.” Talking about Kirk, Trump told reporters, “He was an advocate of nonviolence. That's the way I'd like to see people respond.”

However, he also said ([link removed]) , “We have radical left lunatics out there and we just have to beat the hell out of them.”


** Reaction from Bluesky
------------------------------------------------------------

Reaction to Kirk’s death on social media spans the spectrum. Posts from conservatives range mostly from mourning to anger — with some blaming the left. And while most posts from the liberal-leaning condemned political violence, there were also posts that seemingly celebrated Kirk’s death.

And then there was the reaction to the reaction. Many conservatives said Kirk’s death was being celebrated on the social media platform, Bluesky.

But the headline on Alex Kirshner’s piece for Slate said the opposite: “No, Bluesky Isn’t Celebrating the Death of Charlie Kirk.” ([link removed])

Kirshner wrote, “Kirk’s killing is an unqualified moral disaster. If indeed a critical mass of left-of-center people were celebrating it in the digital streets of Bluesky, that would be a sign of a political movement’s decay and the irredeemability of a social media platform. The problem with this story is that it is not true. If you spent your Wednesday absorbing thousands of posts on Bluesky — as I did, for whatever reason — it would be difficult to make an honest case that the platform’s users were celebrating en masse. There were indeed a lot of people doing that. Just not close to a majority, let alone ‘every post.’”

Kirshner noted that everyone’s social media experience is dependent on who and what they follow. And, yes, there were plenty of mean social media posts about Kirk — something that should come as no surprise about any topic when it comes to social media.

But, Kirshner wrote, “These Bluesky posts weren’t anything approaching a majority, and from accounts with followings of more than a few hundred people, they were downright rare.”

He added, “To describe Bluesky as left of center is correct. To describe it as not that much fun is fair enough. But to argue that it’s a hub for the glorification of political violence is not. To suggest that it has a monopoly on that kind of celebration is complete fantasy.”


** Rubin’s reaction
------------------------------------------------------------

Jennifer Rubin, the former longtime Washington Post columnist who now writes for her Substack site “The Contrarian,” had strong thoughts about the reaction to Kirk’s death. She wrote ([link removed]) :

The murder of Charlie Kirk and shooting at a Colorado high school are abhorrent reminders that we cannot become numb to violence in any form. Political violence is never acceptable. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, Donald Trump has chosen to politicize Kirk’s murder, blaming the rhetoric of the “radical left”—all before anyone has been identified, let alone arrested for the murder.

Sadly, he and the MAGA troops reserve outrage only when Republicans are targeted (compare the near-silence when Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was targeted, the mockery when Paul Pelosi was nearly killed, and the snide remarks when two Minnesota Democrats were assassinated). As we saw yesterday, Democrats condemn political violence whoever is targeted, as such acts have no place in a democracy. Nor does selective outrage or scapegoating broad swaths of the country for violent attacks.

As we commemorate 9/11, we hold the families and loved ones of those lost in our hearts and remember the heroic conduct of so many Americans on that day.

We can be a good, brave, and decent people. We must demand the same of our leaders.


** Nervous about the future
------------------------------------------------------------

The majority on both sides of the political aisle are stressing that we need to lower the temperature on political rhetoric in this country. That said, there are those who see Kirk’s assassination on Wednesday as just the latest in a string of politically violent attacks that could ramp up even more in the weeks and months ahead.

Political violence is not new. In just the past couple of years, there have been several high-profile incidents. An assailant looking for former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her home ended up attacking her husband. Trump was the target of two assassination attempts while running for president last year. And earlier this year, a Minnesota lawmaker was killed in her home. These attacks spanned both sides of the political aisle.

Following the shooting of Kirk, there have been calls from the right for revenge. It even appeared that Fox News’ Jesse Watters was challenging his viewers Wednesday night when he said, “They are at war with us. Whether we want to accept it or not, they are at war with us. What are we going to do about it?”

And as I mentioned above, Trump pointed his finger at the media and the “radical left,” among other inflammatory comments.

The Washington Post’s Naftali Bendavid wrote ([link removed]) , “Experts who study political violence agree its frequency and seriousness is increasing significantly, as more Americans believe the system does not work for them and feel frustrated and helpless.”

Bendavid added, “Other experts warned that more violence may be in store, as acts like Kirk’s killing can lead to a cycle of retribution, in which each side believes that the attacks against it justify a similarly deadly response.”

That’s the fear now — that Kirk’s murder will lead to more violence.

The New York Times’ David French wrote ([link removed]) , “Every threat, every assault, every shooting, every murder — and certainly every political assassination — builds the momentum of hate and fear. You can look at the history of American conflict and unrest and see the same pattern time and again. What starts as a political difference becomes a blood feud the instant someone is hurt or killed. And so each act of political violence has a double consequence. It shatters families, and — over time — it breaks nations.”

Responsible news outlets are trying their best to encourage Americans to tone down the rhetoric. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board called upon Trump to make a difference, writing ([link removed]) , “As the President, as a survivor of a near-assassination himself, and especially as Kirk’s political ally and friend — he can help the country rise above this madness. He can say that this is the moment when the descent into political violence must stop, not least in honor of Charlie Kirk’s willingness to win by debate, not a resort to thuggery or violence.”

While such editorials are admirable, they probably are not effective. But it’s worth trying.


** The right way?
------------------------------------------------------------

New York Times opinion columnist Ezra Klein wrote about Kirk in “Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way.” ([link removed])

Klein opened with, “The foundation of a free society is the ability to participate in politics without fear of violence. To lose that is to risk losing everything. Charlie Kirk — and his family — just lost everything. As a country, we came a step closer to losing everything, too.”

He closed with, “Kirk and I were on different sides of most political arguments. We were on the same side on the continued possibility of American politics. It is supposed to be an argument, not a war; it is supposed to be won with words, not ended with bullets. I wanted Kirk to be safe for his sake, but I also wanted him to be safe for mine and for the sake of our larger shared project. … We are all safe, or none of us are.”

Meanwhile, the Times did a service to readers by laying out exactly what Kirk's various political views were. Many praised Kirk’s defense of the First Amendment and willingness to engage with anyone — often in a respectful way, according to those who have interacted with him.

But what exactly were his views? The Times’ Ashley Ahn and Maxine Joselow wrote, “Where Charlie Kirk Stood on Key Political Issues.” ([link removed])


** Media news, tidbits and interesting links for your weekend review
------------------------------------------------------------
* Former VP Kamala Harris has a new book out on Sept. 23 called “107 Days,” which chronicles her 2024 run for the presidency. This week, The Atlantic ran an excerpt ([link removed]) . In it, she’s critical of President Joe Biden’s initial decision to continue running for president. She writes in her book, “In retrospect, I think it was recklessness. The stakes were simply too high. This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision. Mediaite’s David Gilmour writes, “Here Are the 5 Most Eye-Opening Bits From Kamala Harris’s Scathing New Book Excerpt.” ([link removed])
* NPR has named a new editor in chief: It’s Thomas “Tommy” Evans, a veteran journalist from CNN who arrived at NPR a year ago to launch its editorial review desk. He spent 23 years at CNN, running the network’s London bureau and being vice president in charge of newsgathering. Evans takes over a time of uncertainty for NPR, which recently saw its federal funding cut by Congress under the wishes of the Trump administration. Evans told NPR’s David Folkenflik ([link removed]) , “​​I had a lot of respect from beforehand, but these are really the best journalists in the country, if not the world.” Check out Folkenflik’s story for more details.
* The Wall Street Journal’s Jessica Toonkel reports ([link removed]) that Paramount Skydance is preparing a majority cash bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. Toonkel writes, “The bid will be for the entire company, including its cable networks and movie studio, the people said. Warner said late last year it planned to restructure into two operating divisions, one focused on the legacy cable-television business and the other on streaming and studios. Such a deal would be a big swing. Warner Bros.’s nearly $33 billion market capitalization is more than double that of Paramount Skydance. A bid hasn’t yet been submitted and the plans could still fall apart.”
* The Atlantic’s Charlie Warzel with “You Really Need to See Epstein’s Birthday Book for Yourself.” ([link removed])
* Speaking of Epstein, Bloomberg has obtained 18,000 previously unreported emails from Jeffery Epstein's personal Yahoo account. Here’s Jason Leopold, Ava Benny-Morrison, Jeff Kao, Dhruv Mehrotra, Surya Mattu, Harry Wilson and Max Abelson with “Epstein’s Inbox.” ([link removed])
* The Washington Post’s Scott Nover with “Federal judge curbs DHS force against journalists in L.A.” ([link removed])
* The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf with “A U.S. Citizen Detained by ICE for Three Days Tells His Story.” ([link removed])


** More resources for journalists
------------------------------------------------------------
* Deadline Monday: Time is running out to join the prestigious program that's advanced the careers of 200+ journalists of color. Apply today ([link removed]) .
* Get training to track federal climate policy rollbacks and their local impacts. Enroll now ([link removed]) .
* Deepen your coverage of incarcerated women and women with incarcerated family members and get the chance to apply for one of five $10,000 reporting grants. Enroll now ([link removed]) .
* Turn your life story into a memoir in this pioneering virtual workshop led by Poynter's Director of Craft Kristen Hare, featuring accomplished authors as guest instructors. Enroll now ([link removed]) .
* Airing tomorrow: Recognize story opportunities, see gaps and learn new ways to advance health equity. Enroll now ([link removed]) .
* Time running out to join the prestigious program that's advanced the careers of 200+ journalists of color. Apply today ([link removed]) .
* Master the tools to connect Washington decisions to local stories — essential coverage as the 2026 elections approach. Enroll now ([link removed]) .
* Access ([link removed]) Poynter’s comprehensive mental health reporting resources.
* Journalists of color: Join a free four-day workshop at Poynter's waterfront campus, where accepted applicants develop the skills needed to become powerful writers. Apply now ([link removed]) .
* New manager? Gain the critical skills you need on your path to leadership in journalism, media and technology. Apply now ([link removed]) .

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) .
The Poynter Report is your daily dive into the world of media, packed with the latest news and insights. Get it delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday by signing up here ([link removed]) . And don’t forget to tune into our biweekly podcast ([link removed]) for even more.
[link removed]
Help Poynter strengthen journalism, truth and democracy. ([link removed])
GIVE NOW ([link removed])

ADVERTISE ([link removed]) // DONATE ([link removed]) // LEARN ([link removed]) // JOBS ([link removed])
Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here. ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20for%20Poynter
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
© All rights reserved Poynter Institute 2025
801 Third Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
If you don't want to receive email updates from Poynter, we understand.
You can change your subscription preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe from all Poynter emails ([link removed]) .