How the media’s wait for the facts in Trump shooting fed a backlash

In the frantic moments after a would-be assassin fired shots at Donald Trump, news organizations reported cautiously about what had occurred. As with many breaking stories, it wasn’t immediately clear what was unfolding.

But being right rather than first with the news wasn’t good enough for many readers. With the benefit of ample hindsight, some critics on social media trashed the early, uncertain reports as inadequate or worse.

USA Today, for example, published its first story just 19 minutes after shots rang out with an initial headline of: “Trump removed from stage by Secret Service after loud noises startles former president, crowd.” In a social media post minutes later, it said “popping noises rattled the crowd in Pennsylvania.”

Despite continuous updates to the story, some who encountered USA Today’s preliminary reports were dismissive and contemptuous.

“So guns just make popping noises and are nothing to worry about? Got it,” read one sarcastic post on X - one of hundreds that poured in long after the newspaper had added clarifying details.

Another snarked: “Alexa, why is American media a disgrace to the profession?”

Breaking stories, of course, require the kind of caution USA Today displayed. Not all of the central facts had yet been confirmed by authorities at the time the article was first posted.

“If you heard ‘loud pops,’ that’s all you can say,” said Tom Jones, the daily media columnist for the Poynter Report. “To say more than that, without knowing what it was, would have been incredibly irresponsible. … When dealing with something as critically important as this, you cannot be wrong.”

[Minutes after Trump shooting, misinformation started flying. Here are the facts.]

Whether on the scene in Butler, Pa., or watching from distant newsrooms, journalists suspected that the noise and the chaos were caused by gunfire. But in the first moments, they couldn’t say for sure.

Similar questions lingered for hours as to whether the gunfire was believed to be a deliberate attack on Trump, with some media outlets still cautiously expressing that it is being “investigated as an assassination attempt.”

But the widespread criticism suggests a clash between the enduring impact of the fleeting, first-draft reporting and the impatience of some readers, who assumed journalists had missed or purposely misreported a story that had evolved since it had published.

You can blame social media for that. Tweets and other posts can circulate prominently for hours or days - even after they have been rendered obsolete by fresher developments.

[‘BlueAnon’ conspiracy theories flood social media after Trump rally shooting]

Most news organizations are reluctant to delete old posts for fear of seeming deceptive or evasive. But those old tweets can become fodder for ridicule and contempt, as Saturday’s tragedy demonstrated.

The New York Times’s initial news flash on X, posted some 20 minutes after the first shots, said that Trump had been rushed off the stage “after pops that sounded like gunshots were heard.” The Times stuck with the phrase in two subsequent tweets, the last at 7:33 p.m., drawing an avalanche of criticism. The Times soon switched to describing what happened as “a shooting.”

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesman for the Times, defended the newspaper’s process.

“People speculate and hypothesize on social media all the time. But guesswork is not journalism. Good news organizations report hard and provide facts as quickly and accurately as possible. We did that on Saturday night,” he said.

While the internet and social media have made instantaneous reporting possible, the speed of transmission also has increased the chances of spreading inaccurate information. Given the enormous stakes involved in Saturday’s shooting, reporters generally exercised discipline, limiting themselves to what they could see and hear.

News organizations can tolerate criticism, Jones said, but inaccurate reporting destroys their most precious asset: their credibility.

Few of the initial accounts of the shooting - which injured Trump slightly; killed a Pennsylvania man, Corey Comperatore; and critically wounded two others - were outright wrong. Instead, readers jumped on the stories’ hesitant approach.

The Washington Post’s initial headline said, “Trump escorted away after loud noises at Pa. rally.” CNN’s first take was headlined, “Secret Service rushes Trump off stage after he falls at rally.”

Both headlines were updated within minutes as additional details were confirmed. For The Post, that change came around 7:30 p.m., after law enforcement issued a statement clarifying that it would be accurate to term the incident as “shots fired.”

But no matter. Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) posted screenshots of the first two headlines early Saturday evening and added his own critique: “The so-called independent news media.”

MSNBC came in for similar contempt when it cautiously posted on its X account at 7:27 p.m.: “NEW: Two senior U.S. law enforcement officials tell NBC News there is a growing concern in law enforcement circles that this may have been a serious attempt on the life of former President Donald Trump.”

As it was, many of Trump’s supporters were more than ready to blame the news media for the actions of Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old Pennsylvania man identified by authorities as the shooter.

Even as Trump was being led away from the scene, crowd members at his rally turned toward the press pen and screamed obscenities at the assembled journalist, middle fingers extended. Shouts of “You did this!” and “This is your fault!” could be heard. Security personnel reportedly stopped a few rallygoers from climbing over barriers to reach the pen.

Conservative pundits joined the chorus. “On a daily basis, MSNBC tells its audience that Trump is a threat to democracy, an authoritarian in waiting, and a would-be dictator if no one stops him,” posted commentator Erick Erickson on X. “What did they think would happen?”

It’s unclear what forces or rhetoric drove Crooks, let alone whether he had ever watched MSNBC.

Meanwhile, Trump has himself ritualized hostility toward the media. At almost every rally, he takes a moment to denounce the reporters perched on risers behind the audience. He did so before shots were fired on Saturday - marveling at the crowd in Butler, Pa., and saying, “I wish the fake news back there would show it because nobody would believe it.”

Despite Trump’s and President Biden’s calls to unite in the wake of the shooting, several Republicans also denounced “the media” for supposedly creating a climate that encouraged violence.

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Tex.) employed all caps in an X post in which he said, “Trump-deranged Left wing LUNATICS that parade around MSNBC … are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for this violent attack.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) also posted on X with all caps, writing, “TO THE MEDIA: THIS IS YOUR FAULT.” She went on to say that journalists “got what they wanted, an assassination attempt on President Trump and one of his supporters murdered.” She offered no specific evidence to support her claim.

There was notably little criticism of the print editions of leading newspapers on Sunday. The main headlines of these editions accurately framed the story in just a few words. The Washington Post’s headline was: “Trump injured in rally shooting.” The New York Times said, “Trump hurt, but safe, after a shooting.” The Boston Globe reported, “Trump survives shots at rally,” and the Los Angeles Times offered, “Trump is rushed off stage in rally shooting.” The New York Post had the starkest and simplest headline of all: “Trump Shot.”

Hayden Godfrey contributed to this report.