How social media has changed coverage of the Charlie Kirk murder case

It is difficult to comprehend how much the media landscape, especially the social media environment, has changed the coverage and public understanding of major legal cases over the last 30 years. The case of Tyler Robinson, the alleged murderer of Charlie Kirk, is a powerful example of this.

In 1993, I led the terrorism investigation against Omar Abdul Rahman (“The Blind Sheik”) and members of his jihadist cell. They had bombed the World Trade Center and then planned the simultaneous bombing of New York City landmarks (the UN complex, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters). Abdel Rahman himself was particularly concerned with attacks on US military facilities.

Naturally, some conspiracy theories were created about our case. Maybe this was an inside job for the FBI; It was an excuse to harass Muslims. Or maybe Saddam Hussein’s regime planned it. Maybe Egyptian intelligence services had a hand in this. Or – because no conspiracy theory is complete without this – maybe it was Mossad!

What is the difference between then and now? There was no social media.

CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION: LEGAL EXPERT EXPLAINS DEFENSE CHALLENGES AND WHY CONFIDENTIALITY OF EVIDENCE CAN BE CRUCIAL

Fox News, with emphasis reporting Rather than proselytizing, he was an incipient challenger to the leftist bent of the established media. But this media landscape still fits into the tradition that has developed over decades: the news divisions of a handful of television networks and the major print media — The New York Times, Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

Conclusion? Conspiracy theories have had a hard time gaining traction. There was no instantaneous 24/7 flow of essential communications from millions of people, many of whom had no reliable sources. There were no silent internet communities where people with special, eccentric interests became cauldrons of conspiracy theories. There was no messaging, and even email services were still evolving. No X/Twitter, no Facebook, no TikTok or Blue Sky. It was a different society.

Tyler Robinson, left, is the suspect in the shooting death of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. Kirk was photographed during an incident at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, where he was shot and killed. Robinson appeared on video at his first hearing on September 16 and has not been seen since. (Utah State Courts/Memorandum, Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune, via Reuters.)

Practically speaking, this meant that our Manhattan federal courthouse was the center of gravity. If you wanted to know what was happening in a criminal investigation—who the suspects were, what the evidence was against them, what the legal issues might be in dispute—you had to rely on public filings and pretrial hearings in the case.

DEFENDED CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSIN WANTS TO GET RID OF HIS JAIL CLOTHES FOR UPCOMING COURT AUDIENCES

Today, this situation has been reversed.

Kirk was killed in a shooting at Utah Valley University on September 10. A few days later, Robinson was arrested after surrendering. As is often the case, the arrest resulted in an investigation and the dissemination of official information on the matter.

Indeed, more information was released than is often the case, probably for two reasons. First, so much misinformation spread in the wake of the shooting that authorities perceived the need to expand coverage to reassure the public that the case was strong. Second, Kirk’s murder is a state case. The Utah County District Attorney’s Office is not as familiar with the national spotlight as federal authorities; They went the extra mile to show that the case was in good hands.

TAX COST OF CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSIN’S DEATH PENALTY CASE ESTIMATED BY THE UTAH COMMISSION

However, after the first evidentiary details emerged, official sources went dark. Naturally, this situation disturbed the press organizations; Thanks to the new media environment, there is much more media today than there was in the nineties. But it’s still not that surprising.

This is a capital murder case. American judges at the state and federal levels are generally graduates of elite U.S. law schools with a progressive bent. They are generally hostile to the death penalty (this is one of the biggest disconnects between elites and popular opinion in our country). Prosecutors and police are well aware that death cases are scrutinized more carefully than ordinary criminal prosecutions. If authorities are suspected of leaking information or doing anything to harm Robinson’s rights to a fair trial, the death penalty and perhaps even the entire case could be in jeopardy.

As the press presses the court for further clarification, we are witnessing a disturbing phenomenon of the Information Age.

CLAIM THAT THE DEFENSE OF CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSIN TYLER ROBINSON COULD COST ‘EIGHT FIGURES’ TO UTAH TAXPAYERS: EXPERTS

Like everything else, knowledge hates a vacuum. If our curiosity in high-profile cases is not satisfied by a steady stream of information from law enforcement, defense attorneys, and the court, then the void will inevitably be filled with social media speculation, conspiracy theories, and hateful political rhetoric.

I’m sure that’s why Kirk’s widow, Erika, tried to debunk this crazy talk in a touching interview with Fox News’ Harris Faulkner. Conspiracy theories about her husband’s death might have seemed downright outlandish in September, after prosecutors unveiled a trove of evidence supporting the charges against Robinson. But while nothing seemed to happen in the formal legal proceedings, three months were given for the wild and often offensive comments to fester. Understandably, Ms. Kirk felt compelled to respond.

CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS

The memorial honoring Kirk at Timpanogos Regional Hospital is filled with “We love you Charlie” posters, flowers and American flags. More signs and flowers were placed on the Utah Valley University campus for Kirk. (Fox News Digital/Deirdre Heavey)

Let’s hope the harmful chatter has a short shelf life. The court on Thursday had a standard preliminary hearing where the issue of media access would be discussed.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

More importantly, what we call the “preliminary hearing” is planned to be held in mid-January. In many states and federal law based on U.S. constitutional rules, prosecutors are required to obtain an indictment from a grand jury; this requires a showing of probable cause for the charges sufficient to close the matter for trial. But in Utah, the state generally proceeds with a preliminary hearing: probable cause must be shown in court rather than to a grand jury.

As a result, as we move into 2026, we will likely see and hear a lot more information about Kirk’s murder – credible information worth proving in the courtroom. That was pretty much all we had in the nineties. In today’s world where we have to compete with the noise of social media, what we need to make sense of a very important prosecution is reliable information.

To read more from ANDREW McCarthy, click here