View this post on the web at [link removed]

Even with everything going on in the world—the collapse of Assad’s regime in Syria [ [link removed] ] and Trump’s appointments to his cabinet [ [link removed] ]—this past week’s top story has been, unquestionably, the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson [ [link removed] ].
I don’t need to rehash the details of the assassination, the manhunt, or the coverage since.
But there is one part of this that’s worth calling out: the press has been reckless in its coverage of social media and how people are responding to Thompson’s murder. What they’re doing risks making things worse.
“Folk hero” is an asinine headline
From The New York Times [ [link removed] ] to The Wall Street Journal [ [link removed] ] to The Washington Post [ [link removed] ] to USA Today [ [link removed] ], from Daily Kos [ [link removed] ] to CNN [ [link removed] ] to Fox News [ [link removed] ] to Breitbart [ [link removed] ], a consistent narrative has emerged: there’s support for Thompson’s murderer on social media. The NYT’s article was particularly flagrant.
There’s an axiom in politics that “Twitter isn’t real life [ [link removed] ].” That’s true not only of Twitter, whose users and posters aren’t at all representative of the general public [ [link removed] ], but also of social media more generally [ [link removed] ], where a vast majority of the posts come from a tiny percentage of the users.
I’m absent from social media entirely, but I’ve had enough friends send me screenshots to know that there are people out there celebrating Thompson’s murder. I’m not denying that. But by drawing so much attention to it, not only does it misstate the views of the average American, it actually risks making things much worse.
Reporters are not properly contextualizing what these posts mean, and the picture they’re painting of an angry, violent public is fundamentally disconnected from reality.
The vast majority of Americans do not support political violence
Political violence is a very real problem. There’s a reason that when we say “January 6,” people know what you’re referring to. I’ve written about political violence [ [link removed] ]—it’s alarming and worth addressing head-on.
But the overwhelming majority of Americans agree that political violence is bad. There are polls that say 21% of Americans believe political violence is acceptable [ [link removed] ], but those polls meaningfully overstate how likely Americans are to actually believe in political violence. Here’s why:
From FiveThirtyEight [ [link removed] ]: “Some of these responses [to political violence in polls] can be chalked up to respondents not paying close enough attention, vaguely worded questions or both [ [link removed] ]… [When] presented with specific examples of political violence, between 89 and 100 percent of respondents wanted a suspect in a politically motivated violent crime charged.”
From Pew Research Center [ [link removed] ]: “Online opt-in polls can produce misleading results, especially for young people and Hispanic adults.” There are a few reasons why, but in short, people don’t have a strong incentive to answer questions honestly—and in many cases, aren’t.
The murder of Brian Thompson is political violence. We know that now, and it’s important and fair to call it out as such.
But saying that “some people” view him as a “folk hero” as front-page news with no context? That’s sensationalist and misleading. Even in the era of incendiary politics we live in, Americans do not support political violence like Thompson’s assassination.
This media coverage is more than misleading. It’s dangerous.
In journalism, it’s well understood that covering suicide has to be done delicately. Why? Because if it’s done without sensitivity, it leads to an increase in the suicide rate. Suicide contagion [ [link removed] ], as it’s known, is tragically a real phenomenon [ [link removed] ].
Consequently, there are guides for how the press should report on suicide. Here are two [ [link removed] ] examples [ [link removed] ]. The conclusion from the studies on this—and there are literally more than 100 [ [link removed] ] that reach similar conclusions—is that glamorizing suicides makes other suicides more likely.
This phenomenon isn’t limited to suicide, by the way. It’s true of eating disorders [ [link removed] ].
It’s also true of school shootings [ [link removed] ] and other violence [ [link removed] ]: even if it’s not intentionally so, coverage that glamorizes people who commit high-profile acts of violence increases the odds of others doing the same.
The NYT and other media outlets should know better. The press cannot control what goes viral online, but I genuinely fear that their coverage could lead to more violence.
One final thought
One thing that should be alarming, coming out of all of this, and something I’d like to see covered more: the breadth of surveillance in New York City (and potentially elsewhere).
Obviously, I’m glad that police tracked down a murderer. But I’m also unsettled by just how many cameras had eyes on someone’s every move for the better part of a week.
In places like Hong Kong [ [link removed] ], we’ve already seen the consequences of this much surveillance. And in a world where Trump is threatening to somewhat indiscriminately deport migrants [ [link removed] ] and use the Department of Justice as a tool for personal vengeance [ [link removed] ], it’s worth thinking hard about whether we’re comfortable with this tradeoff of privacy vs. security.
Feel free to share this post with someone who will find this interesting. (If you’re reading this email because someone sent it to you, please consider subscribing [ [link removed] ].)
I do not receive direct replies to this email. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].

Unsubscribe [link removed]?