In the immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the Wall Street Journal made one of the most serious missteps a legacy media organization can make. Because of who they targeted, they likely won’t face any serious repercussions from their readers or the law.
Kirk was a right-wing activist known for his open-air debates and for founding Turning Point USA. Shortly after Kirk’s assassination video was shared nationwide, the Wall Street Journal and other mainstream outlets rushed to assign a motive to the suspect’s actions.
Because of Kirk’s prominent right-wing views, most seemed to assume the motivations of his killer would be aligned with the left. Even now with a suspect, Tyler Robinson, in custody, the shooter’s motivations remain in doubt.
Immediately following the shooting, the Wall Street Journal published unsupported anonymous reports that were later proven false, claiming that the assassin’s bullet casings were engraved with “transgender and anti-fascist ideology.” Their source? “An early bulletin ‘circulated widely among law enforcement officials.’”
It should be noted that in a statement from the Trans Journalists Association urging reporters to be cautious of unverified reports in the wake of the shooting, the organization points out that the phrase “transgender ideology:” “Is a term coined for and used in anti-trans political messaging to falsely equate identity with politics, which is a way to frame transgender identity as a political choice rather than an innate identity. As it is often unclear what actions or political positions the phrase actually refers to — not unlike how ‘the homosexual agenda’ is an amorphous term that has no real definition — reporters should be careful about using this term; it is used exclusively to attack a minority group for political gain.”
As Mother Jones observes in its detailed timeline of Right-Wing attempts to pin the assassination on the trans community, before the WSJ published its story, the origin of the anonymous report may have originated with a right-wing pundit.
Here’s an excerpt from the timeline:
September 11, 8:35 a.m.: Right-wing commentator Steven Crowder posts a screenshot on X of a supposed “internal message” leaked from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives alleging that law enforcement officials found gun cartridges at the scene engraved with unspecified “wording…expressing transgender and anti-fascist ideology.” Crowder’s post is viewed more than 25 million times.
September 11, 10:23 a.m.: The Wall Street Journal posts a link on X to a news story captioned: “Breaking: Ammunition engraved with transgender and antifascist ideology was found inside the rifle authorities believe was used in Kirk’s shooting, sources say.”
The article cites “an internal law enforcement bulletin and a person familiar with the investigation.” The post receives more than 11 million impressions.”
Minutes after the WSJ ran the story, the Daily Beast and New York Post followed suit. The WSJ and Post are both owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which purchased Dow Jones & Company.
This blunder may seem like a forgivable mistake made in the heat of breaking news and unprecedented political vitriol. But the threats of violence this story inspired, the lack of accountability or apology from the outlets involved, and the fact that right-wing power players are continuing to blame the assassination on a marginalized community — without evidence — drives it into more sinister territory.
Right-wing activists and politicos latched on to this statement and theory from the Wall Street Journal and other unsubstantiated internet rumors. They used it to declare civil war and call for violence against the LGBTQ+ community. Some even directly cited the authority of “multiple outlets” when spitting their hate.
“Charlie Kirk’s killer engraved the ammunition used to murder him with pro-transgender ideology, according to reporting in multiple outlets—to the surprise of literally no one,” talk show host Megyn Kelly said, according to the timeline. “There’s one particular group that’s been running around killing Americans in the name of transgender ideology lately, and it’s transgender activists or individuals or those who proclaim that they are.”
Also included in the timeline of hate following the shooting, Mother Jones notes that in an interview on Kelly’s show, Donald Trump Jr. said, “I can’t name, including probably, like, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, a group that is more violent per capita than the radical trans moment.”
More vitriol continues to pour in now, over a week after the shooting,
Internet hate mogul, Laura Loomer, called transgender individuals a “threat to society” Adding:
“It’s time to designate the transgender movement as a terrorist movement,” she wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “We can’t allow them to continue killing people. They need to be socially ostracized, and the President should make medical transitioning ILLEGAL in our country.”
The harm this story will cause the community for years to come is immeasurable, and it was completely avoidable if the journalists involved had simply followed journalism ethics. Instead of taking the time to verify their source, speak with any officials on the record, or even think critically, the publication ran an inflammatory report for the sake of page views.
Now, even as authorities have released more information and there is still no clear tie to the trans community, the outlets that published this information have not apologized. Even after the New York Times published an article urging caution, saying that the ATF has not confirmed a link to the community.
More outlets continued publishing the false link, and the WSJ updated its story to add “Some Sources Urge Caution” to its headline and link to reporting from CNN and the New York Times.
The engravings on the bullet casings have since been revealed and have no link to the trans community. Instead, they included meme-speak and video game references that would have been easily identifiable to any Gen-Z or young millennial journalist who could also tell you that these phrases have no true political identity and are instead prevalent in various internet subcultures.
Mainstream media’s failure in reporting on this assassination comes at an especially vulnerable time for the trans community, and the nation as a whole.
Because of the recent Minneapolis Catholic School shooting, where the shooter was later identified as trans (though any motivations as to why they committed the shooting, as well as their mental state and identity at the time, remain unconfirmed), conservatives were anxious to pin Kirk’s assassination on the trans community.
Scrambling to find a link given that Robinson himself is a cisgender, white male who grew up in a conservative, church-going Utah family, they latched on to his roommate, whom they claimed (before having proof) is trans. This is despite the roommate’s direct cooperation with law enforcement that has aided the investigation.
Authorities have done little to urge caution, with the director of the FBI, Kash Patel, posting misleading statements he has since come under fire for on his social media accounts.
As a young journalist who is growing more and more at odds with mainstream news outlets and watching the death of local news and the overall industry in real-time, I understand that incidents like this are exactly why journalism is dying.
Trust in the media has nose-dived for years, as has readership. The industry has been hit by layoff after layoff, and hundreds of think-pieces from newsroom leaders and non-profits fail to capture the reason why.
My generation (Gen-Z) might have the answer, and it’s simpler than you think.
Follow journalism ethics. If you have a source, prove it. Provide the receipts and avoid using unnamed sources whenever possible. Don’t just publish possibly inaccurate information quickly for the sake of SEO rankings and page views.
The pressure parent companies place on their publications to obtain views is unsustainable and has caused more retractions and errors in critical reporting than many outside the industry realize.
Hand-in-hand with following ethics, newsrooms need to kill the idea that any reporting — no matter the facts — that looks favorably on any group is “activism.”
Senior journalists’ obsession with “bothsidesism” is also killing the industry, because it fails to reckon with a generational shift that doesn’t follow a two-party system and that is instead more nuanced and complicated.
It is also a mindset that places less emphasis on one of the Society of Professional Journalists’ core ethics: minimize harm.
It harms marginalized communities to parrot easily disproven or in-doubt arguments for the sake of equally representing both sides. And, it’s a practice that is preached relentlessly in newsrooms after waves of right-wing bullying over false claims that the press is “too liberal.”
It is also hypocritical that bothsideism doesn’t seem to apply to other news stories and communities, given that the same newsrooms that advocate for echoing right-wing talking points with no analysis or fact-checking in the name of bothsideism are the same ones actively participating in what free speech advocates call the “Palestine Exception.”
It is a death sentence for my generation’s trust in the industry that the same news outlets that rush to pin political violence on trans individuals fail to call Israel’s onslaught on Gaza a genocide – despite objectively observable facts and even a U.N. commission’s findings that yes, it is a genocide.
If mainstream media outlets want to have a future in a world of influencers, AI, and social media news ecosystems, they do have to be relevant. But, relevancy doesn’t come at the expense of truth; instead, truth is vital.
A phrase I heard in journalism school often that these outlets would be wise to learn: As journalists, it isn’t our job to quote a bunch of people saying “it might be raining,” and “it might not be raining.” It is our job to stick our heads out the door and definitively say “Yes, it’s raining.”
As of the publication of this article, WSJ has not retracted its story but has added the following:
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this article detailed how an internal law enforcement bulletin said that ammunition recovered following the Charlie Kirk shooting was engraved with expressions of “transgender and anti-fascist ideology.” Justice Department officials later urged caution about the bulletin by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, saying it may not accurately reflect the messages on the ammunition, and the article was updated Thursday to reflect that. This editor’s note was appended on Friday, Sept. 12, after Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said the engravings included one that said “Hey fascist!” along with other messages and symbols. He gave no indication that the ammunition included any transgender references.
In an era where anyone can call themselves a journalist, it matters to actually act like one. At the same time, there has to be another era of reckoning for traditional journalism. If we refuse to evolve these institutions in light of best practices and shifting landscapes that will impact and target marginalized folks in new ways, we will become a relic of the past.
How to do better
The first thing to keep in mind are the cardinal rules of covering the community. These are: Avoid including unnecessary medical information (for example, whether or not your source has undergone a certain surgery) unless specifically relevant to your story. If it is relevant, be tactful in your descriptions and don’t be afraid to ask your source how they’d refer to it. Don’t deadname people. Always include trans voices in trans stories. And if you don’t know the answer to something, ask.
These boil down to the basic tenets of good reporting – accurately naming sources, refusing to cause harm to sensationalize a serious and sensitive story, and including sources belonging to the community you are writing about.
The Trans Journalists Association has put together the most comprehensive guide to reporting on the community in every area, from standard features to crime. This resource is ever evolving and can be found here. The organization also works to connect newsrooms with sensitivity readers and trans/gender non-conforming reporters who can provide guidance.
The anatomy of a bad story is also easy to spot. Like the example referenced above, these include no trans sources, and echo baseless and unfact-checked claims and assertions.
While this may sound “new” or “too complicated,” as I have heard some veteran reporters complain, it isn’t and doesn’t have to be. These are all basic parts of the journalism code of ethics, which, according to the Society of Professional Journalists, are: to seek truth and report it, to minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent.
Newsrooms have to do better; the future of news, of trans reporters, and of the transgender community at large depends on it. Negligent and unethical coverage doesn’t just harm our community; it erodes trust in the media at a time when that trust is already going extinct.
Ten or twenty years from now, I wonder if they will point to the likely inevitable increase of trans homicide from the direct aftermath of this incident and link it back to journalists. Maybe they’ll use this as an example in a journalism ethics class in the same way they’ve used Jayson Blair’s fabrications. More than anything, I wonder if there will be any journalists or journalism institutions left to care.
Kallie Cox is a St. Louis-based journalist and a graduate of Southern Illinois University Carbondale. They are a contributing writer for the Gateway Journalism Review.
