On September 10, 2025, the campus of a university in Orem, Utah, became the scene of a shocking crime when conservative activist Charlie Kirk was gunned down while speaking with college students. The murder, which prosecutors allege was carried out by 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, quickly ignited a firestorm of speculation and controversy across the political spectrum, with prominent media figures and online commentators weighing in before all the facts had emerged.
In the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, Jemele Hill, a well-known sportswriter and political commentator, posted on social media that Kirk’s death was the result of a “white supremacist gang hit.” According to REUTERS and The Atlantic, Hill’s claim was based on an expert’s analysis of engravings found on the bullet casings at the scene. Hill wrote, “The LA Times spoke with an expert (imagine that!) about the markings on the killer’s bullet casings and turns out … Charlie Kirk likely was the victim of a white supremacist gang hit. Well, well, well.” However, as additional evidence came to light, Hill quietly deleted her post from Bluesky and Threads, drawing further attention and criticism from both supporters and detractors.
The expert cited by Hill was Joan Donovan, an assistant journalism professor at Boston University and self-described “disinformation expert.” Donovan suggested that the bullet casings, which bore memes and phrases like “If you read this, you are gay lmao,” were characteristic of extreme right-wing online communities, particularly those associated with Nick Fuentes—a figure known for leading the so-called “groyper” movement. Donovan claimed, as reported by Washington Free Beacon and BizPac Review, that these markings pointed toward a right-wing motive for the murder.
Yet, as the investigation unfolded, prosecutors and law enforcement provided a very different account. Robinson, the alleged shooter, was not linked to any white supremacist or far-right groups. Instead, according to statements from prosecutors, Robinson confessed in private messages that he killed Kirk because he believed Kirk “spreads too much hate” and stated, “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” Further evidence indicated that Robinson was motivated by left-wing, pro-LGBTQ views and animus toward Kirk, rather than by any affiliation with white supremacist movements. As of September 17, 2025, authorities confirmed that there was no evidence connecting Robinson to white supremacists or the Republican Party.
The rapid spread of misinformation and speculation following Kirk’s murder highlights the volatile intersection of social media, political commentary, and breaking news. Hill’s now-deleted post was widely circulated and discussed before being removed, with Washington Free Beacon’s Chuck Ross announcing the deletion on X and noting the role of Donovan in shaping the initial narrative. Social media users were quick to criticize Hill’s actions, with some suggesting that relying on a “disinformation expert” led to the spread of further misinformation. As one user quipped, “Well, her source was a disinformation expert. She should’ve gone to an information expert instead.”
Hill’s commentary did not end with her deleted post. On her “Spolitics” podcast, recorded on September 16, 2025, she denounced Kirk as a “white supremacist,” stating that his “entire purpose” was to discriminate against “people who were not straight white Christian men.” She went on to criticize the idea that white supremacist beliefs should be regarded as a mere difference of opinion, saying, “I’m tired of white supremacist beliefs being considered a difference of opinion. I’m really sick of that!” Hill cited several of Kirk’s past controversial statements, including his criticism of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and even his remarks about black pilots. According to YouTube / Spolitics, Hill remarked, “As I’m paying attention to how people are talking about and memorializing Charlie Kirk, I’m insulted by the fact that they think his beliefs are just about a difference of opinion. I can live with a difference of opinion.” She continued, “‘Oh, I think because you’re black that you don’t deserve the same treatment.’ Uh-uh! Uh-uh! Got to stop you right there.”
The backlash to Hill’s comments was swift and fierce, especially from conservative circles. Critics accused her of rushing to judgment and perpetuating a false narrative about the motive behind Kirk’s murder. Others highlighted what they viewed as a double standard, pointing out Hill’s previous willingness to overlook allegations against figures she admired, such as Kobe Bryant. Bobby Burack, a user on X, questioned why Hill praised Bryant while “discount[ing] the credible rape allegations against him” and “ignored his homophobic comments,” referencing an Atlantic article authored by Hill.
Hill is no stranger to controversy. Her career has been marked by high-profile clashes with both media organizations and political figures. In 2017, while working at ESPN, she tweeted that President Trump was “a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists” and “the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime.” The backlash from conservative media and Trump himself was immediate, and ESPN distanced itself from her remarks, calling them inappropriate. Hill later said she felt she was simply stating that “water is wet.” Shortly thereafter, she was suspended by ESPN for urging a boycott of Dallas Cowboys advertisers in response to team owner Jerry Jones’ threat to bench players who knelt during the national anthem—a violation of the network’s social media guidelines. By 2018, Hill had left ESPN and joined The Atlantic.
The controversy surrounding Hill’s deleted post and her subsequent remarks about Kirk’s death underscore the challenges facing journalists and commentators in the age of instantaneous, highly polarized social media discourse. The rush to interpret events through ideological lenses can lead to the rapid spread of misinformation, as demonstrated by the shifting narrative around the motive for Kirk’s murder. In this case, initial speculation about a right-wing conspiracy gave way to evidence of a lone actor driven by animosity toward Kirk’s politics and support for pro-LGBTQ causes.
As the dust settles, the case remains a stark reminder of the dangers of jumping to conclusions in the absence of clear evidence. For many observers, the episode also raises questions about the responsibilities of public figures and media professionals in shaping public understanding of high-profile events. The debate over how to characterize both Kirk’s legacy and the circumstances of his death is likely to continue, reflecting the deep divisions that define contemporary American political and media culture.
With prosecutors moving forward with charges against Tyler Robinson and the investigation ongoing, the facts of the case are now clearer than the speculation that once surrounded it. The nation, meanwhile, continues to grapple with the broader implications of how we discuss—and sometimes distort—the news in real time.
