top of page
Writer's pictureWireNews

Media and Political Silence on Trump's Assassination Attempt

Updated: Oct 13

by Ram ben Ze'ev


Media and Political Silence on Trump's Assassination Attempt
Media and Political Silence on Trump's Assassination Attempt

On July 13, 2024, a stunning and horrifying event occurred on live television: President Donald Trump was shot in the head during a public appearance. Millions watched in shock, fearing they had just witnessed the assassination of a former and many believe, the next U.S. president.


Miraculously, Trump survived the attempt on his life, but the attack should have sent shockwaves through the nation and demanded ongoing attention and reflection from both the media and political figures. Yet, just two months later, the media and political machine has largely moved on, as if this event—one of the most violent political attacks in modern U.S. history—was a mere blip on the radar.


One would expect such an event to trigger ongoing national conversation about political violence, the safety of public figures, and the future of political discourse. Instead, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump has been met with a disturbing silence, particularly from mainstream media outlets, Democratic leaders, and the organizers of the most recent presidential debate. It’s hard to imagine that if President Joe Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris had been the target of such a brutal attack, the nation would have moved on so quickly. We would be watching daily updates, interviews with first responders, and emotional tributes. Yet, for Donald Trump, it seems the narrative machine has decided it’s time to move on.


ABC News and the Debate Organizers: A Glaring Omission

On September 12, 2024, ABC News hosted a Republican presidential debate, an event watched by tens of millions of Americans. This was the first major political debate since the attempt on Trump’s life, and many expected the moderators—Linsey Davis, David Muir, and Jonathan Karl—to address the event, if only to acknowledge the severity of what had transpired. Yet, the debate went on without any mention of the assassination attempt.


ABC News, one of the largest and most influential media outlets in the country, had a responsibility to bring up this attack on a former president. Failing to do so was not just an oversight—it was a deliberate choice. A moment of silence for Corey Comperatore, a 50-year-old former fire chief from Buffalo Township, Pennsylvania, perhaps a question about political violence, or even a brief acknowledgment of the event would have been appropriate. But by omitting any reference to the attempt on Trump’s life, the debate organizers sent a clear message: this event, despite its significance, did not merit discussion.


---> Follow on Twitter/X @rambenzeev and read all of RAM's articles on X


Imagine for a moment if this had happened to Biden, Harris, or any other prominent Democrat. The debate would almost certainly have begun with a moment of silence. The moderators would have asked how the candidates planned to address the rising threats of political violence. There would have been retrospectives, interviews, and calls for unity. Yet, in Trump’s case, the response was total silence.


The Media’s Short Attention Span: Selective Outrage at ABC News

The media’s response to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump was brief and superficial. Initially, news outlets like ABC, CNN, and MSNBC reported the breaking news of the shooting with the urgency it deserved. For a few days, the story dominated headlines, with coverage of Trump’s condition and questions about political violence in America. But soon after, the coverage faded. The assassination attempt—a national tragedy in any other circumstance—was quickly replaced by the usual news cycle. Political violence, it seemed, only commanded attention for so long.


The contrast between how this event was treated and how the media would likely have responded had Biden or Harris been the victim is striking. If Biden had been shot on live television, we would still be seeing daily reports on his recovery, profiles of the shooter, and analyses of what the attack means for American democracy. News networks would have run round-the-clock coverage, and public figures across the political spectrum would have expressed outrage and solidarity. But for Trump, the coverage has been fleeting, as though his survival made the event somehow less significant.


ABC News, in particular, bears a heavy responsibility for this silence. As the host of the first major debate following the assassination attempt, they had the perfect opportunity to revisit the issue, examine the broader implications of political violence, and question the candidates on how they would ensure such an attack doesn’t happen again. Instead, they chose to ignore the event entirely, making it clear that certain figures—and certain forms of violence—simply don’t warrant sustained attention.


The Silence from Democratic Leaders

While the media’s attention has drifted away, the silence from key Democratic figures is even more troubling. Prominent Democrats who have made political violence a central part of their platforms have been conspicuously quiet about the attempted assassination of Trump. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, for instance, has spoken out passionately against political violence in the past but has not made any significant public statements condemning the attempt on Trump’s life.


Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has often called for justice and accountability in matters of political misconduct, has remained largely silent as well. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most vocal progressive leaders, who gave passionate speeches after the Capitol riots, has offered no significant commentary on the attack against Trump. These leaders were quick to denounce political violence when it targeted Democrats, but their lack of response to this attack suggests a troubling double standard.


Even President Joe Biden, who briefly condemned the violence in a brief statement, has not addressed the issue publicly since then. There have been no ongoing calls for unity, no national reflections on political violence, and no sustained media presence around the attempt on Trump’s life. This muted response from Democratic leaders speaks volumes about the selective nature of outrage in today’s political landscape.


A Troubling Double Standard

The broader political indifference to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump raises serious questions about the state of political discourse in America. Have we reached a point where political violence is only condemned when it targets one side of the political spectrum? The lack of attention to Trump’s near-death experience suggests that, for some, political violence is only worth discussing when it’s convenient or politically expedient.


If this attack had targeted a prominent Democrat, the national conversation would still be focused on political violence, security failures, and the need for unity in the face of extremism. But because the victim was Donald Trump—a figure who has long been polarizing—the conversation has faded. This selective empathy is not just hypocritical, it’s dangerous. By downplaying or ignoring political violence against certain figures, we risk normalizing it.


Where Do We Go from Here?

The attempted assassination of Donald Trump should have been a turning point in American political discourse. It should have led to deep reflection on the dangers of political violence, the toxic rhetoric that fuels it, and the need for bipartisan unity in the face of such threats. Instead, it has become a forgotten event, brushed aside by both the media and political elites.


The indifference shown by ABC News during the Republican debate and the silence from key Democratic figures highlight a troubling trend: political violence is no longer universally condemned. The machinery that drives public opinion, whether through media or political leadership, has shown that its outrage is selective.


If we continue to allow political violence to be trivialized or ignored based on partisan lines, we risk further eroding the already fragile state of our democracy. The attempted assassination of any political figure—regardless of their party—deserves sustained attention, reflection, and condemnation. To move forward as a nation, we must learn to reject violence unequivocally, not just when it suits our political agendas.


In the wake of this horrifying event, the silence is deafening. The question is: how long will we allow it to continue?


###


bottom of page