I think this goes too far in demonizing HCR. Pointing out misinformation is one thing, but this article feels more like an attack on an individual. I also wish there had been some indication that HCR was given a chance to respond to these accusations.
Nothing he posted was untrue. It wasn’t demonizing her, he pointed out that she jumped to conclusions and posted them as facts. I thought that when I read her post right after she posted it. I even went looking for information that might back up her claims. For what it is worth I read her posts and I am a fan, but like others she did exactly what Gabe said. It wasn’t an attack, he was simply stating what she wrote and what was the truth as far as what was known.
The problem is that he based his attack on two things: the assumptions that a) everything Governor Cox says is unimpeachably true, and b) HRC's biased because she's not a Republican.
Reasonable people can argue about the latter, but the truth about the former is that Governor Cox, repeating what Kash Patel or his underlings told him, was wrong in the first presser about the meaning of the bullet markings, and even after finding out the truth about their usage in Groyper gamer culture is still insisting they prove that the shooter is a lefty.
He wrote, "I’m always hesitant to use the word “lie,” because it’s a word that purports to know what’s in someone’s head (i.e. that they know what they are saying is not true). So, instead, I’ll just say that Richardson’s statement here is extremely, extremely incorrect.'
I'm sorry, that's calling someone a liar without calling them a liar. That's demonizing.
He actually did call her a liar in his pre write-up post yesterday.
“So many people will be flatly misled because of a writer who would rather stick to comfortable lies than uncomfortable truths.”
He also claimed to know her motive.
“Not that I thought Substack was magically immune from the incentive structures that lead prominent voices to mislead their audiences, but it’s still sad to see.”
He's taking everything that Patel and other right-wingers say as the gospel truth when Patel himself said that the texts were “reconstructed” from “deleted” ones.
As Jess Piper points out, “uwu” and “owo” are two very different things:
Donna didn't say it was untrue. And Gabe did more than "simply state." He really hammered the point home repeating himself with multiple mentions and rebukes.
Like you and Donna both said, he's not wrong, but to me it read a bit personal or maybe even jealous. Maybe because he puts in the work of being a journalist while she basically just assembles other people's work, yet she's more popular and therefore more monetarily successful.
The “transcripts” of the “reconstructed” texts allegedly sent by Tyler Robinson sound very artificial.
Show them to any 22-year-old who is as embedded in the online gamer world as Robinson was and see if they or anyone they know in that world would be texting complete (and conveniently self-incriminating) words like that, especially if they were leaping from rooftops with broken-down rifles in their pants legs.
The mistaking of “owo” for “uwu” is one no twenty-ish gamer word guy would make
Please read my post. From what I remember about the article the only thing she did wrong was jumping to the conclusion that it was definitely this theory As far as I know everything else is true She was on with Allison Gill (I am not a huge fan) the other night That was a very interesting discussion
I'm not being egotistical but I had read all of this stuff before
Most people over 35 and the media dont have a clue to this stuff
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -- Herbert Spencer
Thanks for all you do Gabe You and Chris are still my favs
I too was taken aback by the characterization of Governor Cox’s comments as reliable, unbiased, and bipartisan. His interview over the weekend was classic gas-lighting: please, let’s turn down the heated rhetoric and emphasize the shooter’s individual responsibility BUT connect bits and pieces of emerging ‘facts’ as evidence of ‘far left indoctrination’. Did he have free will and responsibility for his actions or was he a tool of the ‘radical left’? Brandishing a fire extinguisher in one hand and a flame-thrower in the other.
Cox stated he was “hoping the shooter was from a foreign country” as if national origin determines your ability to commit evil acts and being American reduces that possibility.
How does it feel like an attack on an individual? Rather than simply pointing out her article seems somewhat dishonest? I sense disappointment rather than attack, but I am curious what you see as an attack.
Because Fleischer wants to get clout by attacking someone knownfor being a truth teller. Ironically, his attack is based on the assumption that Utah Republican Governor Cox, who regurgitates whatever Kash Patel's people tell him - which is why he lied about the meaning of the bullet markings in his first presser and is still lying about them, is the gold standard for truth and reliability.
The FBI under Patel has fired a lot of good agents - including the former Salt Lake City bureau chief, who was fired for being a woman and a Muslim - which is why their "investigation" is very slapdash and more interested in pinning crimes on imaginary transgender lefties* than on investigating the shooter's immersion in the Groyper gamer culture.
*The "transgender" angle comes from Gov. Cox repeating a FOX employee's misreading of a two-year-old TikTok video where the person in it is making fun of a video filter because it mistook the way his hoodie drapes for the kind of long hair often associated with women.
And right away you’re questioning Gabe’s motives. He shares 20% of his audience with HCR, he’s got a lot to lose from this! He’s singling her out because she’s one of – if not the – most popular Substacks on the site and presented a demonstrably false claim as fact with 0 evidence.
First of all that just isn’t true, he spends at least half the piece illustrating his broader point about how the different sides are eager to highlight particular tragedies. And her piece is worthy of questioning, she’s one of the most popular Substackers on the site spreading blatant disinfo with 0 evidence.
Donna,I have to disagree. HCR, as Gabe rather gently points out, stated as an absolute fact something that *might* be true, but which she currently has zero evidence to support. Having Republican parents is not evidence that a person is “not on the left.” That was her firmly stated justification. Moreover, why should HCR have been given “a chance to respond”? She blew it, she got called for it, and she can retract or explain if she misspoke. A famous statement about kitchen and heat applies.
It has been several days since her post. I just checked, there are no updates on her article, no edits, no corrections. So, if her being incorrect was her just being wrong, she should have corrected the record. Her non-correction indicates a lie, IMO.
While I don't disagree she should have waited for harder proof before making such claims, how can we decry the hastiness of Richardson in jumping to conclusions then in the next paragraph appeal to the authority of Gov. Cox who cites zero new evidence in support of his own claim?
Furthermore, the WSJ who you are quoting from themselves were perhaps the most culpable mainstream newspaper in spreading claims about the murder before they could be sure of their validity, later having to walk back their statement that the bullets contained expressions of "transgender and anti-fascist ideology". Now that the WSJ has misled us once, as you say: how can we be sure they won't be willing to mislead us again?
I consider myself to be on the left, but like I imagine of most of your readers, I think it is of the utmost importance to always be alert to the agenda and factual basis of the sources I read, and to even seek out criticism of my current positions or beliefs to ensure I am not operating off of false confidence fueled by ideological hive minds of social media or elsewhere.
That being said, I again question the focus on Richardson here as the central, or at least first, example (I am not arguing against reporting on this whatsoever and believe it should have been included). Where is the inclusion of key rightwing sources that even now are refusing to recognize political violence as a problem that is at the very least on both sides of the political spectrum in this country such as FOX News, Stephen Miller, Donald Trump Jr., and of course the president himself?
Elon Musk, the owner of perhaps the most well-trafficked forum for political news and discussion, constantly pours gasoline on the fire with his posts about the "murderous left". How are we not talking about the man who bought the last election and gutted our government fomenting unrest and calling for the removal of a democratically elected government in the UK?
The fact that you are pushing so hard on this without sourcing anything makes it very difficult to consider you a trustworthy or unbiased source. And that is making his point on radicalized narratives, not disuading from it. If you are sincere in your comments, pls add sources and present a genuine argument on whether Cox's statements were purposefully misleading.
I agree with you. This poster has been in a lot of comments talking about this particular claim but is not showing evidence that the governor "lied" or was purposefully misleading. If he was repeating what he was told by the FBI, I don't see how that is "lying".
I’m not ready to demonize Richardson over this, because I’ve liked her work in the past. So, I’m inclined to hope she was misled and operating in good faith about the “facts” re: Kirk’s killer.
But! I’m a big fan of your work too, and I am starting to prefer sources like you and chris Cillizza and Chuck Todd who are less likely to be swayed or misled by partisan reporting or thinking.
So, I like Dr. Richardson. But I trust you.
Before your commentary, i would have said I trusted her too. Now I have to add an asterisk to that. She is appearing with jonathan last today on a video chat; I’m hoping she will address this subject. If she recants her rush to judgment, I will be happy to see that.
I should add that it’s my hope that nothing will emerge about Kirk’s murderer that will help bolster any narrative that jacks up the ugliness brewing in our country. I’m not a charlie Kirk fan, but I have a big problem with people dancing on his grave. Not because he deserves better— I don’t know if he does or not. But because our country deserves better.
My voting is very partisan, but I don’t like to let my political leanings become my excuse for going against my liberal values. I’m opposed to Kirk’s ideas, but I’m also opposed to partisanship, and I’m opposed to anything that causes people to dehumanize their ideological opponents. Kirk shouldn’t have been murdered, and we shouldn’t be celebrating his murder or using it as an excuse to move toward civil war.
I would prefer to remain a fan of dr. Richardson, but I’m grateful to you for reporting this straight and I will be inclined to wait until YOU report something before I accept whatever I hear next.
I never usually comment on anything on substack but I knew today's article would start a huge divide between readers. I came here to say what you said, only you wrote it more eloquently than I ever could.
Although I do subscribe to HCR and read her articles, I knew right off the bat that even though she was a historian and connected events in history to present events, her writing swayed very subjectively and it was easy to see where she stood on the political spectrum. What I always liked about Gabe was that I couldn't tell where he stood. He explained things in a way that someone like me could understand and even though, in my opinion, Trump was going off the rails, Gabe discussed everything that was happening with a neutral tone. That really helped me and talked me down off a ledge, so to speak.
i'm saddened by everything that's going on in our country right now, and admittedly, I was someone using pieces of information I found to make a judgment about the killer as well. In fact, when I read HCR's piece, I said out loud to my husband “here's proof! He WAS a republican!” When I saw the words she use (“in fact”), I (subconsciously/consciously whatever) immediately jumped to my assumption. That one is on me. When information comes from someone I trust, I tend not to parse out the little details and take all of it in one whole. So this was a good lesson for me, not just with that particular article but with any article.
In this article Gabe mentioned that the shooter was in a relationship with a transgender person but yesterday I saw a snippet that showed a picture of this roommate from two years ago when they used the TikTok filter to make themselves into an anime character. So talk was that this is where the transgender rumor was coming from. I realized that once again, I have to sit it out and wait before making a rush to judgment and participating in the back-and-forth volley that Gabe was talking about in this newsletter.
Anyway, I apologize for the long response to your comment. I guess today's newsletter just brought up feelings of “mommy and daddy are fighting” (as the young kids say), so I came here to see the comments. When I read yours, I agreed with them and wanted to thank you for putting what I was thinking into a very clear comment!
Thank you— I enjoyed reading your reply very much— I appreciate the kind words but I find your words helpful and thoughtful too. Our country needs more conversations like this tiny one we’re having here.
Lest people reading this become nauseated at our mutual congratulation—
I’m sure we both can point to many times we reacted in a partisan way, without even realizing we’re doing it. I continue to do that, despite regularly preaching against it. And I don’t judge people for doing it. I’m just hoping we can all learn to at least do a little bit less of it every day. And talking about it this way can help.
I hope Gabe is the catalyst for more conversations like this one.
We humans are so far from perfect, especially in our darkest moments, we make easy targets: HCR for jumping to and then publishing conclusions not yet supported and Gabe for finding this so distressing that his critique was fueled by negative emotion. I noticed both HCR's and Gabe's lapse and forgive them both for falling short in a terribly painful moment in our history. I do so because they contribute far more than the 99.5% of us and take enormous risks in doing so. Let's learn from these moments and not condemn the people trying their hardest to help us through them..
Gabe Im normally a big fan of your work and think that you generally do a excellent job of keeping a level head and navigating the granular details of complex political issues, but I really think you should have marinated a couple days on this. Like others have said, its bizarrely deferential and uncritical of Gov Cox, a man who has already had to retract some of his initial statements about the shooting, and while I dont dismiss that HCR might have been mistaken about her claims on the shooters politics in her article, it seems overly harsh to suggest it was part of her overwhelming bias or pushing an agenda as you suggested here. Was there an attempt to reach out to her directly and ask what her source was?
Furthermore I think this broader theme of thinking of politics like team sports misses the forest from the trees. Ill freely admit I was quite I was quite invested in the shooters political views, but not because Id consider it a "win" if it turned out he was conservative, but because I was concerned about escalating right wing violence and our current administration using it as pretext for further executive overreach. So far neither of these things have happened in response to this (fingers crossed) but the concerns arent any less real and do not come from no where. This week alone we had a school shooting perpetrated by someone with much more definitive far right ties and 2 michigan state senators shot in their homes 3 months ago by a far right agitator as well. Its peoples fear for their personal safety that is getting them riled up, not pure partisanship.
I agree with your assessment and I was so dismayed by Gabe’s lack of understanding of why folks found Charlie Kirk personally so distressing. I found myself feeling the same exact way about Ezra Kleins editorial in the NYT. I am not as “ smart” as Gabe, but I do know decency when I see it and HCR is decent, as is Gabe. It might be time to re evaluate neutrality when our very democracy is being threatened……and if you think Trump is a decent man, then there is nothing to discuss.
HRC uses appropriate language to reinforce that the ideas are just that - “appears” and “seems” are important words in the segment analyzed. Yet, neither word was acknowledged within the context of your piece. I also question your overuse of parentheses. If you have something to say in print - say it. Why use them as a subtext explainer to the perceived uninformed reader? It sends a message that your average reader is less thoughtful or not as informed as you are. They come across as “here’s the truth you are too uninformed to realize” and therefore sheds a condescending tone.
The point remains what is HCR’s evidence? What is she relying on? Without factual support, something that “seems” and “appears” is nothing but gossip. It makes Gabe’s point: a respected writer — who knows many trust and shape their opinions on her words — should not spread “gossip” in order to support her position.
I’m a Gabe follower, too. I respect his work, generally. This piece felt different. - a veiled attack on a competitor. HRC’s post did not come close to qualifying as “gossip” for me personally. That’s a big reach.
There is a widely circulated picture of the shooter in a MAGA t-shirt. That's evidence.
He was raised in a conservative family in a conservative area. That's not proof, but it is evidence. People's political views tend to be shaped by the environment they grew up in, that's why we have red states and blue states.
He knew who Charlie Kirk was, that's evidence.
You know what we don't have any evidence of? That he had left leanings. We have a statement from the Utah government -- presented without a shred of evidence.
This is what he said before the identity of the shooter was known:
" ... I was praying that if this had to happen here that it wouldn’t be one of us — that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country ..."
There are the inscriptions on the shell casings (that I wish we had pictures of) which generally seem to be left leaning, characterizing Kirk as a fascist. Every interview of people who have met the shooter indicate a left leaning sentiment, particularly when they knew the shooter more recently than 9th grade. His roommate and romantic partner is trans, something I wouldn't expect from a Utah conservative. Not being registered with any party when the rest of his family is registered Republican is consistent with disagreeing with the politics of the rest of the family.
The evidence for the shooter being right wing? It's that for Halloween when he was like 14, he wore an odd Trump costume and another Halloween his costume was the Adidas tracksuit slav squat meme. The meme predates and isn't exclusively associated with the "groyper" phenomenon, and I could not find a date on that Facebook post, so this connection isn't particularly concrete on its own. If the groyper claims are to be believed, at minimum I'd like to see some sort of online account or an acquaintance interview that shows he was a member of that community.
Overall, when there's a solid sum of evidence towards the shooter currently having left wing beliefs and a virtually nonexistent sum of evidence towards him having right wing beliefs beyond speculation of what his edgy Halloween costume choice really means. Is the evidence towards him being right wing really that compelling for you? Do you have good reason to doubt all of the evidence and interviews suggesting that he leans left?
Fwiw, in another screenshot of the slav squat photo, the post is dated October 31, 2018 which would make him about 15 at the time. It's hard for me to quickly tell when exactly the groypers adopted the pepe slav squat meme, but in any case it'd be more informative to have some sort of confirmation that the shooter was in that group. Otherwise it just reeks of low quality viral Twitter research.
If we don't have pictures of the shell casings, how do we know what they look like?
"His roommate and romantic partner is trans, something I wouldn't expect from a Utah conservative."
First, nothing about the roommate has been confirmed. Second, ideology is generally a product of how you're raised, while sexuality is a product of how you're born. I know lots of people who were raised Republican but born gay. They're generally tortured souls, but how they were born didn't impact how they were raised.
The crux of your argument is then that the governor of utah is lying or is mistaken about the simple factual details of this high-profile case. This assumption seems to be predecated on some problematic statement he made about being shocked that Kirk was killed by a Utahn instead of an outsider, rather than on material that disputes the specific facts in question. Whether that's the correct assumption here will surely be clear when the shooter goes to court, if not earlier.
On ideology, that's something that is far from dictated by how you're raised. Just as a republican can be gay, a kid raised in a christian conservative household may end up being an atheist or left leaning after being socialized in college or online (online being more likely in this case). This is also not rare. Likewise, there are many instances of people raised liberal but became much more conservative in the last year or two. You probably know several people in both of these camps.
On this whole issue, I'll say that I don't think the left are more violent and it does seem that overall (ie in the last ten years), more political violence comes from the right. With this specific shooting, just looking at what evidence has been presented in each direction, and also looking at how a good chunk of liberals celebrate this death and I have not yet seen a conservative be excited about it, it just seems ridiculous to look at all that and conclude it must've been some sort of super-fascist who opted to start their criminal record by killing an effective influencer on the same team who just wasn't far right enough. Clearly one narrative on this requires disregarding more of the available information than the other.
"On this whole issue, I'll say that I don't think the left are more violent and it does seem that overall (ie in the last ten years), more political violence comes from the right."
Let's see. The biggest incidence of political violence in American history was January 6, 2021. Entirely on the right.
But just google "political violence in the us by ideology." Read the first couple of hits. The consensus is that roughly 75% of political violence is committed by right-wingers.
OK, the text messages at face value show he was in a romantic relationship with his roommate. We're still back to assuming that sexual identity determines political leaning, it doesn't.
First, let me say overall, I don’t disagree with your analysis about HCR’s snippet you posted. However, I do feel like in making your point you aren’t doing yourself any favors and actually are exposing your different flavor of bias that I see pretty consistently in your work.
Let me start by acknowledging that HCR is liberally biased. I don’t think there is any doubt, I mean, if you read her consistently, have you ever seen any serious critique of the Democratic positions especially of her favorite politicians like Joe Biden? However, I don’t think she claims to be a completely unbiased news source and I’ve never treated her that way. The main claim I see from her and her work is to place the current events into a historical context which I think she does pretty well overall. Sometimes, she gets out of her lane though and I think this is one of those times. She is careful enough with most things that I don’t think it was a mistake, I think this was purposeful. We can speculate about why but we don’t really know that either so I’m not going to.
On the other hand, placing her into the “conflict entrepreneurs" group I think is a bit of a stretch too. While being a liberal commentator, HCR always documents her posts with a plethora of footnotes providing her sources if you want to check her work. In this specific case, she didn’t back it up with a footnote but I know from reading her consistently this is a rare occurrence. She also releases at least almost all of her content free (not to take a cheap shot, but this is more than you do so I’m sure she could profiteer more if she wanted to; her subscription is also cheaper than yours). I would guess that’s part of the reason her subscriber base is larger. In fact, I replaced my subscription to HCR with Wake Up to Politics at least partially because of that difference. I like your commentary but I actually have to pay for the best content with you and didn’t for her so you took her slot in my budget. I don’t think that makes HCR a saint or immune from critique, but again, in the context of you critiquing HCR specifically, I would just be a little careful about complaining that she is monetizing conflict without looking in the mirror a bit harder. In some sense, no matter where you land on the spectrum or how balanced, you are monetizing the conflict by talking about it at all…it’s a big story that gets attention and draws eyeballs which helps you pay your bills. Period.
Again, my point is not to excuse HCR but I want to draw attention to the false equivalence you are presenting in this post. Yes, you talk about the problems on the right. However, DJT, Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn, and Charlie Kirk, who have consistently trafficked in false claims and conspiracies with no evidence across time get barely a few sentences much less paragraphs in this post. On the other hand, HCR is consistently mentioned across about half the piece, painstakingly critiquing her duplicitous position while no mention of the positive things she consistently does like providing references, generally being well-reasoned and educational, and providing most of her content for free to provide more context. Again, I know from reading her consistently that she is liberally biased but undocumented false claims are a rarity for her posts. Does this dichotomy of coverage not seem like a bias problem to you? Doesn’t it seem like you are holding HCR up to a higher standard and creating false equivalence? If you want to focus more on someone, shouldn’t we at least hold DJT to a higher standard if anyone is because he is our current President and represents us to the world? I know we all know who DJT is and how he works and it’s old news, but is dumping on HCR for half a post in detail and cursorily mentioning the other side really as unbiased reporting as you think it is? The answer at least seems pretty plain to me…just as HCR, that you might be the pot calling the kettle black.
To be clear, I’m not threatening to drop my subscription or anything like that because I generally really like what you do on Wake Up to Politics and I always feel like I have a more balanced perspective because of it. Just like I give HCR a bit of grace when she gets it wrong (and more consistently when she just leaves things out completely), I do the same for you. I think I would be careful about trusting any one person (including myself/yourself) as the final judge on what the evidence does and does not say so I try to spread my media content diet out to people across the political spectrum like you and HCR that are educated and provide original sources for your commentary so I can make my own choices about your bias. ;)
Btw, I personally feel like @chriscillizza has nailed the tone that I think you are trying to take over several of his Charlie Kirk pieces and I appreciate it. He critiques politicians especially DJT (not political commentators) on both sides of the aisle calling a spade a spade (they sign up for it by being our representatives) but mainly spends his time developing a centrist view by talking about the facts and gives the facts broader context across time and not just the immediate moment. He does reference conflict entrepreneurs more generally (allowing us to decide who is misusing their soapbox) and warns his viewers to hold out judgement at least until more is known and emphasizes our shared commonality rather than our division to try to take the temperature down.
Gabe, I have loved your newsletter, but I really beg you to take a step back and re-examine how you are covering the Charlie Kirk murder. You are falling into many of the same traps you are accusing others of. In your original post, you showed a surprising lack of understanding for people who have felt victimized by Kirk. You do try to clear that up a little here, but now you're attacking HCR for no reason. She said it "seemed" like he was far right, which at the time, based on the maybe irrelevant bullet casings, was how it seemed. The possibilities about the roommate where just becoming public about the same time. Now it doesn't seem like either theory has necessarily more weight than the other. The truth is that we just don't know. The format of her newsletter is such that a correction wouldn't really make sense, especially as we really don't know she wasn't right yet. You are jumping to conclusions here too.
He's "attacking" her for calling her out for spreading misinformation. There never was evidence that the shooter "seemed" to be far right, just motivated reasoning from people who don't want to accept reality as it exists. The bullet cases expressly call Charlie Kirk a "fascist" and reference a song used by antifascist movements since the second world war. It's not a secret. Anyone who's following the news should know this information.
HCR has never claimed to be an impartial news source. Her speciality is applying historical context. Anyone reading her should assume she is reporting through a liberal lense, and that was the lense she applied to the information she had. I am an HCR reader, but a casual one. I feel like this level of public call out is completely unwarranted. Leaving a comment for her asking her to clarify her sources for that would be totally reasonable. Writing this piece not using names, just saying that sources he usually trusted seemed to be making this mistake would be reasonable. This is not that. This is a public witch hunt, and Gabe has lost me as a reader.
There's a massive gulch between wearing your bias on your sleeve, and deliberately (or negligently) spreading literal disinformation about a recent assassination to millions of impressionable people online. If your idea of "historical context" is to deliberately misconstrue events to fit a historical narrative, you aren't familiar with historical scholarship. Her "lense" is apparently smudged. If HCR is going to be a public writer she is allowed to be openly criticized. She should expect and welcome good faith criticism like this! This is how academics and intellectuals are held accountable! She has no sources to clarify, since she (and many others) have turned to unsourced assertions rather than evidence. If some mild and extremely warranted good faith criticism towards someone who really ought to have done better is too much for you, then I don't know why you're even on the Internet in general.
I knew I'd find a boat load of comments here today.
When we are lead by a president who sets the "gold standard" for honesty and civility we the people will follow. But, when the opposite is the case...?¿
I'm with the commenters who think the reporting on today's topic should have addressed the lack of presidential behavior coming from our current administration, as this behavior has ushered in (or at least cemented) the problems being discussed.
On Bluesky and Reddit a huge nunber of leftists are 100% sure the shooter is a proven far right groyper based on snowballing viral misinformation (though most should do more like Gabe to directly refute it). Its leaking into some of my leftist facebook friends.
But the vast majority of leftist journalists/opinion leaders have not partaken in the misinformation. HRC is now one of the few who have.
Judging by these comments you can actually tell how brave Gabe actually was for posting this. People questioning his motives and getting annoyed he even found this worth commenting on: all because he criticized one of their people. That’s all he did; they’re not even saying his critiques are incorrect. She did not have any evidence for what she authoritatively claimed. He shares 20% of his audience with HCR, he should be financially disincentivized to post something like this. He posted this against his own interests so the record could be set straight, that’s the sign of a genuinely honest and good person.
I appreciate the points you are making and wish to make. And I am not one for diving into the minutia of information to provide a possible "tit-for-tat" moment, but you had published that Lisa Cook, the fed governor that the president is trying to remove, as having fudged her mortgage application for a second home, stating that it was her primary residence which gave the president and his minions "cause" to remove her. If I recall correctly, I think you used the term "fishy." I am now reading that she had listed on the mortgage application for this second house that it would be her vacation home. If this is true, I have not seen a retraction in your published comments. Perhaps I missed them, in which case..."never mind!"
I also recognized immediately that HCR’s paragraph featuring strong language about Robison’s political leanings did not seem like her. I did not see supporting evidence
per se. I’ll be interested to see how this plays out.
Republican Gov. Cox, who Gabe is using as his gold standard of unbiased truth, lied and still lies about the bullet markings, repeating whatever Kash Patel tells him. (Patel fired the highly competent SLC Bureau chief earlier this summer because she was a woman and Muslim.)
The fact is that the markings are not "lefty" but associated with far-right activist Nick Fuentes' Groyper gamer culture, which often ironically appropriates memes. Even the Pepe frog wasn't originally Groyper.
I agree. I subscribe to HCR but I don't read her as a historian. I read her as an intelligent commentator with a strong bias who often uses historical references in an interesting way. Perhaps her day job is an historian, but her Substack is opinion. I think she might agree, given the title she uses: "Letters from an American."
I think this is a remarkable article and why I have subscribed to WUTP for more than a decade. We need more journalists who try to report facts in an independent manner. We all need to be careful not to live in an echochamber. While I also subscribe to HCR, I appreciate her history articles like the one today and realize her political articles lean left and are not always grounded in facts.
I do not understand why you find this important to extensively comment on right now. An attack on HRC is not necessary and unhelpful in a time of such distress. Perhaps she was reporting on the information being shared at that time, and in time, when more facts are revealed, she would address that in a future newsletter. BUt vilifying her is not a way to offer support, and begin to figure out how, as a collective, we move forward. Please Gabe offer up an apology. Perhaps you pulled the proverbial "trigger" too fast.
Why does he owe an apology for pointing out a mistake on behalf of someone he subscribes to? A mistake that could not have happened from available news, but likely from bias? He was clearly disappointed by the author, not angry.
I think that Joyce Vance states it well. "Let's wait and see what the evidence shows and leave the political narratives aside." Perhaps HCR needs to apologize for jumping to conclusions. No one, no group is immune from mis or dis information. We all need to be careful in what we state with certainty.
Perhaps Fleischer needs to apologize for trusting Governor Cox after Cox was caught lying about the meaning of the bullet markings, the sole "evidence" for Robinson being a lefty. (The Guardian had to walk back their story that an alleged "high school friend" claimed that he was a lefty when the "friend" admitted that, far from being his friend, he really didn't know Robinson at all or remember much about him.)
Mediaite, a *conservative* news site, broke the story about the bullet markings being from gamer culture and used ironically by Groypers:
Gabe Fleischer trusts white male Republicans who are known to have pushed false information (Cox was wrong in his first press conference about the meaning of the bullet engravings and he has refused to admit that he was wrong despite gamers and people who know far-right groyper society correcting him) over trained female historians dedicated to finding and preserving knowledge of the truth.
Note that Gabe makes zero mention of Laura Loomer's and groyper leader Nick Fuentes' long standing beefs with Charlie Kirk - or Robinson’s long standing use of groyper memes. He wants to pretend that HCR just made her statements without having any evidence at all when he knows better.
I have paid subscriptions to only a couple of Substack accounts, and one of them distributes your newsletters regularly. I’m surprised at the angrily presented inference of motive in your post last night, as if there has been a longtime beef brewing. It has the vibe of someone calling-out a neighbor on an HOA Facebook page rather than speaking with that person directly.
Facts with evidence and reliable sources matter, particularly on accounts with large followings and especially in this climate. Mistakes happen as well, especially when news is moving fast. No one is totally immune from getting swept up. What one does after realizing the mistake matters a great deal.
HRC certainly has a narrative in her letters, as she is a presenter of context in regards to the current news cycle, but I’m wondering if you have noticed other blatant non-facts she has presented and then failed to correct. Or is this the first?
Gabe is trusting a white Republican guy who were now know lied about the bullet markings in his first press conferences over a person who is a trained historian and dedicated to the truth.
I think this goes too far in demonizing HCR. Pointing out misinformation is one thing, but this article feels more like an attack on an individual. I also wish there had been some indication that HCR was given a chance to respond to these accusations.
I respectfully disagree.
Nothing he posted was untrue. It wasn’t demonizing her, he pointed out that she jumped to conclusions and posted them as facts. I thought that when I read her post right after she posted it. I even went looking for information that might back up her claims. For what it is worth I read her posts and I am a fan, but like others she did exactly what Gabe said. It wasn’t an attack, he was simply stating what she wrote and what was the truth as far as what was known.
The problem is that he based his attack on two things: the assumptions that a) everything Governor Cox says is unimpeachably true, and b) HRC's biased because she's not a Republican.
Reasonable people can argue about the latter, but the truth about the former is that Governor Cox, repeating what Kash Patel or his underlings told him, was wrong in the first presser about the meaning of the bullet markings, and even after finding out the truth about their usage in Groyper gamer culture is still insisting they prove that the shooter is a lefty.
You are literally doing the thing being called out in the article. Like are you folks really this incapable of the teeniest shred of self awareness?
Why do you be rude? There are other ways to state an opinion.
Says the professional troll
He wrote, "I’m always hesitant to use the word “lie,” because it’s a word that purports to know what’s in someone’s head (i.e. that they know what they are saying is not true). So, instead, I’ll just say that Richardson’s statement here is extremely, extremely incorrect.'
I'm sorry, that's calling someone a liar without calling them a liar. That's demonizing.
He actually did call her a liar in his pre write-up post yesterday.
“So many people will be flatly misled because of a writer who would rather stick to comfortable lies than uncomfortable truths.”
He also claimed to know her motive.
“Not that I thought Substack was magically immune from the incentive structures that lead prominent voices to mislead their audiences, but it’s still sad to see.”
He's taking everything that Patel and other right-wingers say as the gospel truth when Patel himself said that the texts were “reconstructed” from “deleted” ones.
As Jess Piper points out, “uwu” and “owo” are two very different things:
https://substack.com/@jesspiper/note/p-173893655
Donna didn't say it was untrue. And Gabe did more than "simply state." He really hammered the point home repeating himself with multiple mentions and rebukes.
Like you and Donna both said, he's not wrong, but to me it read a bit personal or maybe even jealous. Maybe because he puts in the work of being a journalist while she basically just assembles other people's work, yet she's more popular and therefore more monetarily successful.
The “transcripts” of the “reconstructed” texts allegedly sent by Tyler Robinson sound very artificial.
Show them to any 22-year-old who is as embedded in the online gamer world as Robinson was and see if they or anyone they know in that world would be texting complete (and conveniently self-incriminating) words like that, especially if they were leaping from rooftops with broken-down rifles in their pants legs.
The mistaking of “owo” for “uwu” is one no twenty-ish gamer word guy would make
https://substack.com/@jesspiper/note/p-173893655?r=110br
Please read my post. From what I remember about the article the only thing she did wrong was jumping to the conclusion that it was definitely this theory As far as I know everything else is true She was on with Allison Gill (I am not a huge fan) the other night That was a very interesting discussion
I'm not being egotistical but I had read all of this stuff before
Most people over 35 and the media dont have a clue to this stuff
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -- Herbert Spencer
Thanks for all you do Gabe You and Chris are still my favs
Peace and pretzels
Gabe also is assuming that Republican Governor Cox, who lied about the bullet markings in his first presser, is a fountain of truth.
I too was taken aback by the characterization of Governor Cox’s comments as reliable, unbiased, and bipartisan. His interview over the weekend was classic gas-lighting: please, let’s turn down the heated rhetoric and emphasize the shooter’s individual responsibility BUT connect bits and pieces of emerging ‘facts’ as evidence of ‘far left indoctrination’. Did he have free will and responsibility for his actions or was he a tool of the ‘radical left’? Brandishing a fire extinguisher in one hand and a flame-thrower in the other.
Cox stated he was “hoping the shooter was from a foreign country” as if national origin determines your ability to commit evil acts and being American reduces that possibility.
Why do you think that would be his motive for saying that?
How does it feel like an attack on an individual? Rather than simply pointing out her article seems somewhat dishonest? I sense disappointment rather than attack, but I am curious what you see as an attack.
Because Fleischer wants to get clout by attacking someone knownfor being a truth teller. Ironically, his attack is based on the assumption that Utah Republican Governor Cox, who regurgitates whatever Kash Patel's people tell him - which is why he lied about the meaning of the bullet markings in his first presser and is still lying about them, is the gold standard for truth and reliability.
https://www.editorialboard.com/does-the-right-know-the-real-danger-is-to-their-right/
The FBI under Patel has fired a lot of good agents - including the former Salt Lake City bureau chief, who was fired for being a woman and a Muslim - which is why their "investigation" is very slapdash and more interested in pinning crimes on imaginary transgender lefties* than on investigating the shooter's immersion in the Groyper gamer culture.
*The "transgender" angle comes from Gov. Cox repeating a FOX employee's misreading of a two-year-old TikTok video where the person in it is making fun of a video filter because it mistook the way his hoodie drapes for the kind of long hair often associated with women.
https://bsky.app/profile/rsthomas42.bsky.social/post/3lyr5x3fl3s2i
The person may not even be Robinson’s roommate!
https://bsky.app/profile/cwebbonline.com/post/3lyr5rlrlas2m
And right away you’re questioning Gabe’s motives. He shares 20% of his audience with HCR, he’s got a lot to lose from this! He’s singling her out because she’s one of – if not the – most popular Substacks on the site and presented a demonstrably false claim as fact with 0 evidence.
He spent his entire piece questioning hers.
He spent his entire piece questioning hers.
First of all that just isn’t true, he spends at least half the piece illustrating his broader point about how the different sides are eager to highlight particular tragedies. And her piece is worthy of questioning, she’s one of the most popular Substackers on the site spreading blatant disinfo with 0 evidence.
His entire basis for criticizing HCR at the time he wrote it was the unsupported word of Governor Cox.
Donna,I have to disagree. HCR, as Gabe rather gently points out, stated as an absolute fact something that *might* be true, but which she currently has zero evidence to support. Having Republican parents is not evidence that a person is “not on the left.” That was her firmly stated justification. Moreover, why should HCR have been given “a chance to respond”? She blew it, she got called for it, and she can retract or explain if she misspoke. A famous statement about kitchen and heat applies.
It has been several days since her post. I just checked, there are no updates on her article, no edits, no corrections. So, if her being incorrect was her just being wrong, she should have corrected the record. Her non-correction indicates a lie, IMO.
She’s got a page with 2 million followers. She can respond there. Happens all the time in the print media.
While I don't disagree she should have waited for harder proof before making such claims, how can we decry the hastiness of Richardson in jumping to conclusions then in the next paragraph appeal to the authority of Gov. Cox who cites zero new evidence in support of his own claim?
Furthermore, the WSJ who you are quoting from themselves were perhaps the most culpable mainstream newspaper in spreading claims about the murder before they could be sure of their validity, later having to walk back their statement that the bullets contained expressions of "transgender and anti-fascist ideology". Now that the WSJ has misled us once, as you say: how can we be sure they won't be willing to mislead us again?
I consider myself to be on the left, but like I imagine of most of your readers, I think it is of the utmost importance to always be alert to the agenda and factual basis of the sources I read, and to even seek out criticism of my current positions or beliefs to ensure I am not operating off of false confidence fueled by ideological hive minds of social media or elsewhere.
That being said, I again question the focus on Richardson here as the central, or at least first, example (I am not arguing against reporting on this whatsoever and believe it should have been included). Where is the inclusion of key rightwing sources that even now are refusing to recognize political violence as a problem that is at the very least on both sides of the political spectrum in this country such as FOX News, Stephen Miller, Donald Trump Jr., and of course the president himself?
Elon Musk, the owner of perhaps the most well-trafficked forum for political news and discussion, constantly pours gasoline on the fire with his posts about the "murderous left". How are we not talking about the man who bought the last election and gutted our government fomenting unrest and calling for the removal of a democratically elected government in the UK?
Cox literally lied about the bullet engraving in his first presser. He is not the trustworthy person Gabe Fleischer wants us to think he is.
The fact that you are pushing so hard on this without sourcing anything makes it very difficult to consider you a trustworthy or unbiased source. And that is making his point on radicalized narratives, not disuading from it. If you are sincere in your comments, pls add sources and present a genuine argument on whether Cox's statements were purposefully misleading.
I agree with you. This poster has been in a lot of comments talking about this particular claim but is not showing evidence that the governor "lied" or was purposefully misleading. If he was repeating what he was told by the FBI, I don't see how that is "lying".
I’m not ready to demonize Richardson over this, because I’ve liked her work in the past. So, I’m inclined to hope she was misled and operating in good faith about the “facts” re: Kirk’s killer.
But! I’m a big fan of your work too, and I am starting to prefer sources like you and chris Cillizza and Chuck Todd who are less likely to be swayed or misled by partisan reporting or thinking.
So, I like Dr. Richardson. But I trust you.
Before your commentary, i would have said I trusted her too. Now I have to add an asterisk to that. She is appearing with jonathan last today on a video chat; I’m hoping she will address this subject. If she recants her rush to judgment, I will be happy to see that.
I should add that it’s my hope that nothing will emerge about Kirk’s murderer that will help bolster any narrative that jacks up the ugliness brewing in our country. I’m not a charlie Kirk fan, but I have a big problem with people dancing on his grave. Not because he deserves better— I don’t know if he does or not. But because our country deserves better.
My voting is very partisan, but I don’t like to let my political leanings become my excuse for going against my liberal values. I’m opposed to Kirk’s ideas, but I’m also opposed to partisanship, and I’m opposed to anything that causes people to dehumanize their ideological opponents. Kirk shouldn’t have been murdered, and we shouldn’t be celebrating his murder or using it as an excuse to move toward civil war.
I would prefer to remain a fan of dr. Richardson, but I’m grateful to you for reporting this straight and I will be inclined to wait until YOU report something before I accept whatever I hear next.
I never usually comment on anything on substack but I knew today's article would start a huge divide between readers. I came here to say what you said, only you wrote it more eloquently than I ever could.
Although I do subscribe to HCR and read her articles, I knew right off the bat that even though she was a historian and connected events in history to present events, her writing swayed very subjectively and it was easy to see where she stood on the political spectrum. What I always liked about Gabe was that I couldn't tell where he stood. He explained things in a way that someone like me could understand and even though, in my opinion, Trump was going off the rails, Gabe discussed everything that was happening with a neutral tone. That really helped me and talked me down off a ledge, so to speak.
i'm saddened by everything that's going on in our country right now, and admittedly, I was someone using pieces of information I found to make a judgment about the killer as well. In fact, when I read HCR's piece, I said out loud to my husband “here's proof! He WAS a republican!” When I saw the words she use (“in fact”), I (subconsciously/consciously whatever) immediately jumped to my assumption. That one is on me. When information comes from someone I trust, I tend not to parse out the little details and take all of it in one whole. So this was a good lesson for me, not just with that particular article but with any article.
In this article Gabe mentioned that the shooter was in a relationship with a transgender person but yesterday I saw a snippet that showed a picture of this roommate from two years ago when they used the TikTok filter to make themselves into an anime character. So talk was that this is where the transgender rumor was coming from. I realized that once again, I have to sit it out and wait before making a rush to judgment and participating in the back-and-forth volley that Gabe was talking about in this newsletter.
Anyway, I apologize for the long response to your comment. I guess today's newsletter just brought up feelings of “mommy and daddy are fighting” (as the young kids say), so I came here to see the comments. When I read yours, I agreed with them and wanted to thank you for putting what I was thinking into a very clear comment!
Thank you— I enjoyed reading your reply very much— I appreciate the kind words but I find your words helpful and thoughtful too. Our country needs more conversations like this tiny one we’re having here.
Lest people reading this become nauseated at our mutual congratulation—
I’m sure we both can point to many times we reacted in a partisan way, without even realizing we’re doing it. I continue to do that, despite regularly preaching against it. And I don’t judge people for doing it. I’m just hoping we can all learn to at least do a little bit less of it every day. And talking about it this way can help.
I hope Gabe is the catalyst for more conversations like this one.
We humans are so far from perfect, especially in our darkest moments, we make easy targets: HCR for jumping to and then publishing conclusions not yet supported and Gabe for finding this so distressing that his critique was fueled by negative emotion. I noticed both HCR's and Gabe's lapse and forgive them both for falling short in a terribly painful moment in our history. I do so because they contribute far more than the 99.5% of us and take enormous risks in doing so. Let's learn from these moments and not condemn the people trying their hardest to help us through them..
This was such a beautiful comment. Thank you.
Thank you. Also see Tim Snyder's post today.
https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p/always-be-kind?r=p5sx8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Gabe Im normally a big fan of your work and think that you generally do a excellent job of keeping a level head and navigating the granular details of complex political issues, but I really think you should have marinated a couple days on this. Like others have said, its bizarrely deferential and uncritical of Gov Cox, a man who has already had to retract some of his initial statements about the shooting, and while I dont dismiss that HCR might have been mistaken about her claims on the shooters politics in her article, it seems overly harsh to suggest it was part of her overwhelming bias or pushing an agenda as you suggested here. Was there an attempt to reach out to her directly and ask what her source was?
Furthermore I think this broader theme of thinking of politics like team sports misses the forest from the trees. Ill freely admit I was quite I was quite invested in the shooters political views, but not because Id consider it a "win" if it turned out he was conservative, but because I was concerned about escalating right wing violence and our current administration using it as pretext for further executive overreach. So far neither of these things have happened in response to this (fingers crossed) but the concerns arent any less real and do not come from no where. This week alone we had a school shooting perpetrated by someone with much more definitive far right ties and 2 michigan state senators shot in their homes 3 months ago by a far right agitator as well. Its peoples fear for their personal safety that is getting them riled up, not pure partisanship.
I agree with your assessment and I was so dismayed by Gabe’s lack of understanding of why folks found Charlie Kirk personally so distressing. I found myself feeling the same exact way about Ezra Kleins editorial in the NYT. I am not as “ smart” as Gabe, but I do know decency when I see it and HCR is decent, as is Gabe. It might be time to re evaluate neutrality when our very democracy is being threatened……and if you think Trump is a decent man, then there is nothing to discuss.
HRC uses appropriate language to reinforce that the ideas are just that - “appears” and “seems” are important words in the segment analyzed. Yet, neither word was acknowledged within the context of your piece. I also question your overuse of parentheses. If you have something to say in print - say it. Why use them as a subtext explainer to the perceived uninformed reader? It sends a message that your average reader is less thoughtful or not as informed as you are. They come across as “here’s the truth you are too uninformed to realize” and therefore sheds a condescending tone.
The point remains what is HCR’s evidence? What is she relying on? Without factual support, something that “seems” and “appears” is nothing but gossip. It makes Gabe’s point: a respected writer — who knows many trust and shape their opinions on her words — should not spread “gossip” in order to support her position.
I’m a Gabe follower, too. I respect his work, generally. This piece felt different. - a veiled attack on a competitor. HRC’s post did not come close to qualifying as “gossip” for me personally. That’s a big reach.
There is a widely circulated picture of the shooter in a MAGA t-shirt. That's evidence.
He was raised in a conservative family in a conservative area. That's not proof, but it is evidence. People's political views tend to be shaped by the environment they grew up in, that's why we have red states and blue states.
He knew who Charlie Kirk was, that's evidence.
You know what we don't have any evidence of? That he had left leanings. We have a statement from the Utah government -- presented without a shred of evidence.
This is what he said before the identity of the shooter was known:
" ... I was praying that if this had to happen here that it wouldn’t be one of us — that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country ..."
https://newrepublic.com/post/200421/utah-governor-spencer-cox-kirk-death
Are those the words of an objective reporter? Yet Fleisher wants to treat them as fact.
There are the inscriptions on the shell casings (that I wish we had pictures of) which generally seem to be left leaning, characterizing Kirk as a fascist. Every interview of people who have met the shooter indicate a left leaning sentiment, particularly when they knew the shooter more recently than 9th grade. His roommate and romantic partner is trans, something I wouldn't expect from a Utah conservative. Not being registered with any party when the rest of his family is registered Republican is consistent with disagreeing with the politics of the rest of the family.
The evidence for the shooter being right wing? It's that for Halloween when he was like 14, he wore an odd Trump costume and another Halloween his costume was the Adidas tracksuit slav squat meme. The meme predates and isn't exclusively associated with the "groyper" phenomenon, and I could not find a date on that Facebook post, so this connection isn't particularly concrete on its own. If the groyper claims are to be believed, at minimum I'd like to see some sort of online account or an acquaintance interview that shows he was a member of that community.
Overall, when there's a solid sum of evidence towards the shooter currently having left wing beliefs and a virtually nonexistent sum of evidence towards him having right wing beliefs beyond speculation of what his edgy Halloween costume choice really means. Is the evidence towards him being right wing really that compelling for you? Do you have good reason to doubt all of the evidence and interviews suggesting that he leans left?
Also the maga shirt pic was doctored. In the original photo, he's in his college dorm and he's wearing a salmon colored shirt with no markings on it.
Fwiw, in another screenshot of the slav squat photo, the post is dated October 31, 2018 which would make him about 15 at the time. It's hard for me to quickly tell when exactly the groypers adopted the pepe slav squat meme, but in any case it'd be more informative to have some sort of confirmation that the shooter was in that group. Otherwise it just reeks of low quality viral Twitter research.
If we don't have pictures of the shell casings, how do we know what they look like?
"His roommate and romantic partner is trans, something I wouldn't expect from a Utah conservative."
First, nothing about the roommate has been confirmed. Second, ideology is generally a product of how you're raised, while sexuality is a product of how you're born. I know lots of people who were raised Republican but born gay. They're generally tortured souls, but how they were born didn't impact how they were raised.
The crux of your argument is then that the governor of utah is lying or is mistaken about the simple factual details of this high-profile case. This assumption seems to be predecated on some problematic statement he made about being shocked that Kirk was killed by a Utahn instead of an outsider, rather than on material that disputes the specific facts in question. Whether that's the correct assumption here will surely be clear when the shooter goes to court, if not earlier.
On ideology, that's something that is far from dictated by how you're raised. Just as a republican can be gay, a kid raised in a christian conservative household may end up being an atheist or left leaning after being socialized in college or online (online being more likely in this case). This is also not rare. Likewise, there are many instances of people raised liberal but became much more conservative in the last year or two. You probably know several people in both of these camps.
On this whole issue, I'll say that I don't think the left are more violent and it does seem that overall (ie in the last ten years), more political violence comes from the right. With this specific shooting, just looking at what evidence has been presented in each direction, and also looking at how a good chunk of liberals celebrate this death and I have not yet seen a conservative be excited about it, it just seems ridiculous to look at all that and conclude it must've been some sort of super-fascist who opted to start their criminal record by killing an effective influencer on the same team who just wasn't far right enough. Clearly one narrative on this requires disregarding more of the available information than the other.
"On this whole issue, I'll say that I don't think the left are more violent and it does seem that overall (ie in the last ten years), more political violence comes from the right."
Let's see. The biggest incidence of political violence in American history was January 6, 2021. Entirely on the right.
But just google "political violence in the us by ideology." Read the first couple of hits. The consensus is that roughly 75% of political violence is committed by right-wingers.
"A good chunk of liberals celebrate this death"?
Name one. One.
We now have the text messages with the roommate, which are transcribed in the charges against the shooter here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/09/16/us/tyler-robinson-charges.html?unlocked_article_code=1.mU8.jooL.UUL_fH4KQcdy
OK, the text messages at face value show he was in a romantic relationship with his roommate. We're still back to assuming that sexual identity determines political leaning, it doesn't.
Hi @gabefleisher,
First, let me say overall, I don’t disagree with your analysis about HCR’s snippet you posted. However, I do feel like in making your point you aren’t doing yourself any favors and actually are exposing your different flavor of bias that I see pretty consistently in your work.
Let me start by acknowledging that HCR is liberally biased. I don’t think there is any doubt, I mean, if you read her consistently, have you ever seen any serious critique of the Democratic positions especially of her favorite politicians like Joe Biden? However, I don’t think she claims to be a completely unbiased news source and I’ve never treated her that way. The main claim I see from her and her work is to place the current events into a historical context which I think she does pretty well overall. Sometimes, she gets out of her lane though and I think this is one of those times. She is careful enough with most things that I don’t think it was a mistake, I think this was purposeful. We can speculate about why but we don’t really know that either so I’m not going to.
On the other hand, placing her into the “conflict entrepreneurs" group I think is a bit of a stretch too. While being a liberal commentator, HCR always documents her posts with a plethora of footnotes providing her sources if you want to check her work. In this specific case, she didn’t back it up with a footnote but I know from reading her consistently this is a rare occurrence. She also releases at least almost all of her content free (not to take a cheap shot, but this is more than you do so I’m sure she could profiteer more if she wanted to; her subscription is also cheaper than yours). I would guess that’s part of the reason her subscriber base is larger. In fact, I replaced my subscription to HCR with Wake Up to Politics at least partially because of that difference. I like your commentary but I actually have to pay for the best content with you and didn’t for her so you took her slot in my budget. I don’t think that makes HCR a saint or immune from critique, but again, in the context of you critiquing HCR specifically, I would just be a little careful about complaining that she is monetizing conflict without looking in the mirror a bit harder. In some sense, no matter where you land on the spectrum or how balanced, you are monetizing the conflict by talking about it at all…it’s a big story that gets attention and draws eyeballs which helps you pay your bills. Period.
Again, my point is not to excuse HCR but I want to draw attention to the false equivalence you are presenting in this post. Yes, you talk about the problems on the right. However, DJT, Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn, and Charlie Kirk, who have consistently trafficked in false claims and conspiracies with no evidence across time get barely a few sentences much less paragraphs in this post. On the other hand, HCR is consistently mentioned across about half the piece, painstakingly critiquing her duplicitous position while no mention of the positive things she consistently does like providing references, generally being well-reasoned and educational, and providing most of her content for free to provide more context. Again, I know from reading her consistently that she is liberally biased but undocumented false claims are a rarity for her posts. Does this dichotomy of coverage not seem like a bias problem to you? Doesn’t it seem like you are holding HCR up to a higher standard and creating false equivalence? If you want to focus more on someone, shouldn’t we at least hold DJT to a higher standard if anyone is because he is our current President and represents us to the world? I know we all know who DJT is and how he works and it’s old news, but is dumping on HCR for half a post in detail and cursorily mentioning the other side really as unbiased reporting as you think it is? The answer at least seems pretty plain to me…just as HCR, that you might be the pot calling the kettle black.
To be clear, I’m not threatening to drop my subscription or anything like that because I generally really like what you do on Wake Up to Politics and I always feel like I have a more balanced perspective because of it. Just like I give HCR a bit of grace when she gets it wrong (and more consistently when she just leaves things out completely), I do the same for you. I think I would be careful about trusting any one person (including myself/yourself) as the final judge on what the evidence does and does not say so I try to spread my media content diet out to people across the political spectrum like you and HCR that are educated and provide original sources for your commentary so I can make my own choices about your bias. ;)
Btw, I personally feel like @chriscillizza has nailed the tone that I think you are trying to take over several of his Charlie Kirk pieces and I appreciate it. He critiques politicians especially DJT (not political commentators) on both sides of the aisle calling a spade a spade (they sign up for it by being our representatives) but mainly spends his time developing a centrist view by talking about the facts and gives the facts broader context across time and not just the immediate moment. He does reference conflict entrepreneurs more generally (allowing us to decide who is misusing their soapbox) and warns his viewers to hold out judgement at least until more is known and emphasizes our shared commonality rather than our division to try to take the temperature down.
Gabe, I have loved your newsletter, but I really beg you to take a step back and re-examine how you are covering the Charlie Kirk murder. You are falling into many of the same traps you are accusing others of. In your original post, you showed a surprising lack of understanding for people who have felt victimized by Kirk. You do try to clear that up a little here, but now you're attacking HCR for no reason. She said it "seemed" like he was far right, which at the time, based on the maybe irrelevant bullet casings, was how it seemed. The possibilities about the roommate where just becoming public about the same time. Now it doesn't seem like either theory has necessarily more weight than the other. The truth is that we just don't know. The format of her newsletter is such that a correction wouldn't really make sense, especially as we really don't know she wasn't right yet. You are jumping to conclusions here too.
He's "attacking" her for calling her out for spreading misinformation. There never was evidence that the shooter "seemed" to be far right, just motivated reasoning from people who don't want to accept reality as it exists. The bullet cases expressly call Charlie Kirk a "fascist" and reference a song used by antifascist movements since the second world war. It's not a secret. Anyone who's following the news should know this information.
HCR has never claimed to be an impartial news source. Her speciality is applying historical context. Anyone reading her should assume she is reporting through a liberal lense, and that was the lense she applied to the information she had. I am an HCR reader, but a casual one. I feel like this level of public call out is completely unwarranted. Leaving a comment for her asking her to clarify her sources for that would be totally reasonable. Writing this piece not using names, just saying that sources he usually trusted seemed to be making this mistake would be reasonable. This is not that. This is a public witch hunt, and Gabe has lost me as a reader.
There's a massive gulch between wearing your bias on your sleeve, and deliberately (or negligently) spreading literal disinformation about a recent assassination to millions of impressionable people online. If your idea of "historical context" is to deliberately misconstrue events to fit a historical narrative, you aren't familiar with historical scholarship. Her "lense" is apparently smudged. If HCR is going to be a public writer she is allowed to be openly criticized. She should expect and welcome good faith criticism like this! This is how academics and intellectuals are held accountable! She has no sources to clarify, since she (and many others) have turned to unsourced assertions rather than evidence. If some mild and extremely warranted good faith criticism towards someone who really ought to have done better is too much for you, then I don't know why you're even on the Internet in general.
I knew I'd find a boat load of comments here today.
When we are lead by a president who sets the "gold standard" for honesty and civility we the people will follow. But, when the opposite is the case...?¿
I'm with the commenters who think the reporting on today's topic should have addressed the lack of presidential behavior coming from our current administration, as this behavior has ushered in (or at least cemented) the problems being discussed.
100%. HRC's "error" seems so minor in light of the lies our president and his media outlet (Fox) are spewing. So reprehensible.
On Bluesky and Reddit a huge nunber of leftists are 100% sure the shooter is a proven far right groyper based on snowballing viral misinformation (though most should do more like Gabe to directly refute it). Its leaking into some of my leftist facebook friends.
But the vast majority of leftist journalists/opinion leaders have not partaken in the misinformation. HRC is now one of the few who have.
I just learned who Stephen Miller is...we need to ask for divine guidance.
Judging by these comments you can actually tell how brave Gabe actually was for posting this. People questioning his motives and getting annoyed he even found this worth commenting on: all because he criticized one of their people. That’s all he did; they’re not even saying his critiques are incorrect. She did not have any evidence for what she authoritatively claimed. He shares 20% of his audience with HCR, he should be financially disincentivized to post something like this. He posted this against his own interests so the record could be set straight, that’s the sign of a genuinely honest and good person.
I appreciate the points you are making and wish to make. And I am not one for diving into the minutia of information to provide a possible "tit-for-tat" moment, but you had published that Lisa Cook, the fed governor that the president is trying to remove, as having fudged her mortgage application for a second home, stating that it was her primary residence which gave the president and his minions "cause" to remove her. If I recall correctly, I think you used the term "fishy." I am now reading that she had listed on the mortgage application for this second house that it would be her vacation home. If this is true, I have not seen a retraction in your published comments. Perhaps I missed them, in which case..."never mind!"
I noticed this too right away when I read the post by Richardson. It was so unlike her - glad you called it out!
I also recognized immediately that HCR’s paragraph featuring strong language about Robison’s political leanings did not seem like her. I did not see supporting evidence
per se. I’ll be interested to see how this plays out.
Thanks, Terri Zearing
Republican Gov. Cox, who Gabe is using as his gold standard of unbiased truth, lied and still lies about the bullet markings, repeating whatever Kash Patel tells him. (Patel fired the highly competent SLC Bureau chief earlier this summer because she was a woman and Muslim.)
The fact is that the markings are not "lefty" but associated with far-right activist Nick Fuentes' Groyper gamer culture, which often ironically appropriates memes. Even the Pepe frog wasn't originally Groyper.
https://www.editorialboard.com/does-the-right-know-the-real-danger-is-to-their-right/
I agree. I subscribe to HCR but I don't read her as a historian. I read her as an intelligent commentator with a strong bias who often uses historical references in an interesting way. Perhaps her day job is an historian, but her Substack is opinion. I think she might agree, given the title she uses: "Letters from an American."
Broken light. Why not give examples of her “ cherry picking”.
I think this is a remarkable article and why I have subscribed to WUTP for more than a decade. We need more journalists who try to report facts in an independent manner. We all need to be careful not to live in an echochamber. While I also subscribe to HCR, I appreciate her history articles like the one today and realize her political articles lean left and are not always grounded in facts.
I do not understand why you find this important to extensively comment on right now. An attack on HRC is not necessary and unhelpful in a time of such distress. Perhaps she was reporting on the information being shared at that time, and in time, when more facts are revealed, she would address that in a future newsletter. BUt vilifying her is not a way to offer support, and begin to figure out how, as a collective, we move forward. Please Gabe offer up an apology. Perhaps you pulled the proverbial "trigger" too fast.
Why does he owe an apology for pointing out a mistake on behalf of someone he subscribes to? A mistake that could not have happened from available news, but likely from bias? He was clearly disappointed by the author, not angry.
I think that Joyce Vance states it well. "Let's wait and see what the evidence shows and leave the political narratives aside." Perhaps HCR needs to apologize for jumping to conclusions. No one, no group is immune from mis or dis information. We all need to be careful in what we state with certainty.
Perhaps Fleischer needs to apologize for trusting Governor Cox after Cox was caught lying about the meaning of the bullet markings, the sole "evidence" for Robinson being a lefty. (The Guardian had to walk back their story that an alleged "high school friend" claimed that he was a lefty when the "friend" admitted that, far from being his friend, he really didn't know Robinson at all or remember much about him.)
Mediaite, a *conservative* news site, broke the story about the bullet markings being from gamer culture and used ironically by Groypers:
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/gamers-claim-writing-on-bullet-casings-in-charlie-kirk-shooting-are-from-helldivers-2-video-game/
Later, other people clarified the role the memes play in Groyper gamer culture:
https://www.editorialboard.com/does-the-right-know-the-real-danger-is-to-their-right/
Gabe Fleischer trusts white male Republicans who are known to have pushed false information (Cox was wrong in his first press conference about the meaning of the bullet engravings and he has refused to admit that he was wrong despite gamers and people who know far-right groyper society correcting him) over trained female historians dedicated to finding and preserving knowledge of the truth.
Note that Gabe makes zero mention of Laura Loomer's and groyper leader Nick Fuentes' long standing beefs with Charlie Kirk - or Robinson’s long standing use of groyper memes. He wants to pretend that HCR just made her statements without having any evidence at all when he knows better.
https://www.editorialboard.com/does-the-right-know-the-real-danger-is-to-their-right/
Why should he apologize for noticing a factual inaccuracy and correcting it?
Why? because the truth is we actually don’t know yet what the truth is.
Which is exactly what he was saying. HCR was the one making the claim before we had any evidence.
Oh please.
Why not call out the PRESIDENT who called for revenge.
I have paid subscriptions to only a couple of Substack accounts, and one of them distributes your newsletters regularly. I’m surprised at the angrily presented inference of motive in your post last night, as if there has been a longtime beef brewing. It has the vibe of someone calling-out a neighbor on an HOA Facebook page rather than speaking with that person directly.
Facts with evidence and reliable sources matter, particularly on accounts with large followings and especially in this climate. Mistakes happen as well, especially when news is moving fast. No one is totally immune from getting swept up. What one does after realizing the mistake matters a great deal.
HRC certainly has a narrative in her letters, as she is a presenter of context in regards to the current news cycle, but I’m wondering if you have noticed other blatant non-facts she has presented and then failed to correct. Or is this the first?
Gabe is trusting a white Republican guy who were now know lied about the bullet markings in his first press conferences over a person who is a trained historian and dedicated to the truth.
This just seems disingenuous and fuming, like he has had a personal bone to pick and has been waiting for just the right thing to “call her out” on.
May we all wait with bated breath to see if he holds any other influencers equally accountable…lest we be helplessly misled.