Opinion | A Helpful Guide to Assigning Blame Before Facts Arrive

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In the immediate aftermath of a shocking shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Americans across the political spectrum did what they do best in moments of uncertainty: confidently explained exactly what happened before any actual information became available.

On X (formerly known as the place where nuance goes to die), several prominent conservative voices wasted no time identifying the root cause: liberals, obviously. Specifically, liberals who have spent years criticizing President Donald Trump in ways that are, according to these commentators, both hysterical and somehow powerful enough to control the minds of strangers with firearms.

“The left has been calling Trump a Nazi for years,” one post read, concluding that this rhetorical excess had inevitably culminated in violence—despite the minor detail that no one had yet confirmed the target, motive, or, inconveniently, anything at all.

Meanwhile, liberals responded with a competing theory: if we’re going to speculate wildly, why not speculate in the other direction? After all, the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is famously packed with journalists—a group that conservative media figures have described, at various times, as “enemies of the people,” “liars,” and “a threat to democracy.”

So perhaps, some suggested, the shooter was motivated by that rhetoric instead. Perhaps the target wasn’t a politician at all, but the press corps itself. Or perhaps—brace yourself—it’s too early to say.

This suggestion was immediately rejected as irresponsible.

Experts in online discourse (self-appointed, naturally) clarified that waiting for facts is a dangerous practice that could lead to measured responses, reduced outrage, and—worst of all—a missed opportunity to score points against the other side.

Political analysts note that both narratives share a comforting simplicity: they allow people to blame their opponents instantly, without the burden of evidence or the inconvenience of complexity. In a polarized environment, ambiguity is intolerable. Certainty, even wildly unfounded certainty, is far more satisfying.

At press time, additional details about the incident remained unclear. However, sources confirmed that several thousand more takes had already been drafted, posted, and confidently defended online.

Investigations are ongoing, but one conclusion has already been reached with bipartisan agreement: whatever happened, it was definitely the other side’s fault.