Kirk ‘ASSASSIN’ Unmasked.

Assassin or Terrorist? The Language of Hypocrisy in America’s Headlines

Notice the headline splashed across certain outlets: “Kirk ‘ASSASSIN’ Unmasked.”

The choice of the word assassin is not accidental. It sounds exclusive, dramatic, cinematic—like a political thriller unfolding in real life. It reduces the event to the act of a lone wolf, a misguided young man, an individual story detached from larger systems of belief or ideology.

But words are never neutral. They shape perception. They assign blame. They create heroes, villains, or scapegoats.

When Charlie Kirk was gunned down, Utah’s Governor Spencer Cox admitted something brutally honest in his address. For hours, he said, he prayed that the perpetrator would not be “one of our own.” He hoped it was an outsider—an immigrant, a stranger, someone from beyond state lines. But the prayer was not answered.

Because the gunman, Tyler Robinson, was not a stranger at all. He was the son of a conservative pastor. He was white, Christian, Republican. He came from within the very community Charlie Kirk celebrated and defended.

Now pause and imagine the same scenario, but with a Muslim perpetrator. Even if that person had only a Muslim-sounding name, even if he had never set foot in a mosque, the headlines would have screamed differently. “Islamist Terrorist.” “Radical Jihadist.” The narrative would shift instantly from an individual crime to collective guilt. Entire communities would be dragged into the dock of public opinion. Ordinary Muslims would face questions at airports, in classrooms, in their workplaces: “Why is your religion producing terrorists?”

This double standard is not theoretical. We saw it with 9/11, where two decades later, Muslims in America are still stigmatized by association. We saw it after the Boston Marathon bombing, when mosques across the country were vandalized. We saw it after the San Bernardino shooting, when presidential candidates openly suggested banning Muslims from entering the country.

And yet, when violence comes from white conservative men, the script changes. The labels soften. Dylann Roof, who massacred Black churchgoers in Charleston, was called a “disturbed loner.” Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed protesters in Kenosha, was portrayed by some politicians as a patriotic teenager defending his community. January 6 rioters, who stormed the U.S. Capitol in an act of domestic terrorism, are now reframed by right-wing figures as “hostages” rather than insurrectionists.

So when Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger on Charlie Kirk, the word chosen was not terrorist, but assassin. A word that almost lends a perverse dignity—an echo of historical figures, from Julius Caesar’s killers to Cold War spies. It dresses up murder in the cloak of political theatre.

This hypocrisy was laid bare in the reactions of politicians. Representative Nancy Mace initially thundered, “Time to bring back the death penalty.” But once Robinson’s identity was revealed, her tone softened. Suddenly he was no longer a monster but “a young man who lost his way,” someone to be prayed for rather than condemned.

Even Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could not resist trying to link the shooting to “radical Islamists,” despite clear evidence that the shooter was neither Muslim, nor Arab, nor Palestinian. The script is so ingrained that some cannot help but place the blame on Islam—even when Islam is nowhere near the story.

This is the open wound of America’s discourse:

If the killer is Muslim, the guilt is collective. The burden falls on an entire religion, an entire people.

If the killer is white and conservative, the guilt is individualized. It becomes a family tragedy, an isolated misstep.

Charlie Kirk did not die at the hands of Muslims, liberals, Black radicals, or transgender activists—the groups he so often vilified. He died at the hands of someone from his own cultural and political tribe. That is the bitter irony.

And yet, the media still struggled to apply the word terrorist to one of their own. They reached for the safer, more palatable assassin.

Words matter. They shape justice, policy, and public sentiment. As long as “terrorist” remains a label reserved for brown or Muslim bodies, while white Christian men get the cinematic title of “assassin,” America will continue to betray its own claim of equality before the law.

Until that changes, every new headline will reveal not just a tragedy, but the hypocrisy that shadows it.