The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk not only shocked the nation but also revealed sharp divisions in how the media framed his death. Left-leaning outlets labeled him "controversial" and "divisive," while right-leaning hosts responded with anger and partisan blame, reflecting the deep polarization of the country.
On Wednesday, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking to students at Utah Valley University. For nearly two hours, breaking news coverage focused on whether Kirk would survive his injuries.
A select few outlets allowed commentary that inferred Kirk's stances on some high-profile issues had a hand in his own death.
"He has been one of the most divisive younger figures in this who is constantly pushing this hate speech aimed at certain groups and I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words and hateful words lead to hateful actions and that's the environment we're in," MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd said during live coverage.
Dowd was fired by MSNBC following the remarks.
"During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable," the network's president, Rebecca Kutler, said in a statement. "We apologize for his statements, as has he. There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise."
In coverage of Kirk's assassination, left-leaning outlets repeatedly used descriptors like "controversial" and "divisive" to describe him.
"He is not without controversy, he's taken a lot of controversial positions," a CNN commentator said.
"He delved into controversial topics, held controversial opinions," an ABC News analyst said.
"He is a polarizing figure," an MSNBC analyst said. "He is a lightning rod. He makes some people feel very angry."
Media watchdog group AllSides identifies this as "bias by subjective qualifying adjectives," where terms like "controversial" or "divisive" are used as descriptors that reflect opinion rather than neutral fact.
Describing someone who has just been assassinated as "controversial" can be viewed as biased because it frames the victim in a negative light and steers attention away from the act of violence and onto a debate over the victim's character.
Even if it is factual that Kirk was seen as polarizing by some, word selection and framing carry weight, and what one political side considers "controversial" may not be to the other.
CBS News was the only major broadcast network that avoided these descriptors in its primetime coverage, opting for more neutral terms like "conservative activist" and "influencer."
Right-leaning outlets, many of which had personal ties to Kirk, framed the story with emotionally charged rhetoric. Commentators called it a "war we didn't ask for" and blamed Democrats directly.
"The left is a problem," a Newsmax host said. "It doesn't have a problem. They are the problem."
"We're not the radical type but if you thought you were going to shut a movement down, you're going to get a rude awakening, you woke us the f -- up," a Fox News host said.
"Democrats, the left, are the most violent people in America today," another Newsmax host said. "And it is no longer a debate."
The language used on the right was emotionally charged, with hosts and commentators speaking more about what they saw as the assassination's political meaning. In the process, reporting on the facts often became overshadowed by anger.
Media analysts point out that this represents a different form of bias -- through statements of opinion presented as fact. By declaring that "Democrats are the most violent people in America today" or that "this is a war we didn't ask for," commentators were framing an act of evil as the responsibility of an entire political party. That framing is not universally shared; it is an interpretation. But in the context of live coverage, it was presented as fact.
The polarized coverage mirrors what is often seen on social media feeds, where partisan rhetoric is amplified. By permitting this type of commentary in their programming, some media outlets appear to prioritize finger-pointing, blame and activism for one political side over reporting facts.
This trend aligns with a broader national picture. A Gallup poll tracking partisan divides over 20 years shows Americans moving further apart on major issues.
On the issue of gun laws, the partisan divide has more than doubled over the past two decades. In 2003, 70% of Democrats and 41% of Republicans supported stricter gun laws -- a 29-point gap. By 2023, support among Democrats had risen to 84%, while it dropped among Republicans to 31%, creating a 53-point divide.
The same trend appears in Americans' views on climate change. Twenty years ago, 70% of Democrats and 41% of Republicans said Americans should worry a "fair amount" about global warming. Today, 87% of Democrats agree compared to just 35% of Republicans -- a 52-point gap.
Abortion also shows a deepening divide. In 2003, 32% of Democrats and 15% of Republicans supported abortion being legal under any circumstance. By 2023, Democratic support nearly doubled to 59%, while Republican support fell slightly to 12%, widening the gap from 17 points to 47.
On immigration, the trend again holds. In 2003, 53% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats said immigration should decrease -- an 11-point difference. By 2023, the share of Republicans had risen to 58%, but among Democrats it dropped to 18%. That widened the gap to 40 points.
Together, these shifts show more than simple disagreement. They reveal two parties moving not just apart, but further toward opposite poles -- evidence of a deepening polarization that now defines American politics.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the coverage that followed underscored how deeply divided both the media and the public have become. From subjective adjectives on the left to emotionally charged blame on the right, partisan framing overshadowed facts in the immediate aftermath of a national tragedy. As polling shows, the gaps between Democrats and Republicans on issues have widened dramatically over the past two decades, reflecting a society that is moving further apart ideologically.
In such an environment, an impartial media is not just ideal but essential to ensure that moments of crisis are reported with accuracy, empathy, and responsibility rather than through the lens of political bias to further stoke partisan animosity.