Almost as soon as the shootings from the White House Correspondents’ Dinner were reported on Saturday night, social media was awash with conspiracy theories and finger-pointing over the attack. In a now-common phenomenon following such incidents, prominent influencers fill the information vacuum with speculation in an attempt to gain attention and followers.
A miasma of lies, rumors and conjecture has clouded several breaking news stories in recent years, including two previous assassination attempts against President Trump and the capture of Nicolás Maduro, then-president of Venezuela.
This time, users from across the political spectrum participated in the chaos on platforms like X, Facebook and TikTok. Some users claimed the attack was “staged”, suggesting without evidence that it was part of an apparent plot by Mr Trump or others to divert attention from poor election numbers or the war with Iran. “Featured” grew to more than 300,000 posts on X by midday Sunday, according to data TweetBindera social media analytics company owned by Audiense. (At least some of these posts refuted the suggestion that the attack was planned.)
Other users were quick to assign blame, tying the shooter to Israeli causes without evidence and using images that were clearly manipulated by AI tools to support their claims. RT, Russia’s state news channel, amplified some of these claims about X.
The result is a near-instant online free-for-all-truth report that takes place within seconds and minutes of an attack being reported and continues for days and weeks, even as the truth often remains elusive. Nearly two years after the assassination attempt on Mr. Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania, for example, many influential accounts continue to say the event was staged, even though two people were killed.
“People reshape reality based on what they want to be true or not,” said Cliff Lampe, professor and associate dean for academic affairs in the School of Information at the University of Michigan. “They’re not looking for good information, they’re looking for corroborating information, and they often go very deep down the rabbit hole of juxtaposed images, micrographs of the president’s face, and so on.”
At the same time, the president has participated more actively online than previous leaders, rallying his supporters to post about events as he has and fanning the flames of conspiratorial thinking. After Saturday’s attack, Mr. Trump said the ordeal should bolster his push to build a gold-plated ballroom on the White House grounds. The news was picked up by many right-wing influencers, who shared posts saying Mr Trump’s planned ballroom was a much-needed addition to White House security measures. (The dinner was held at the Washington Hilton.)
Among the most shared posts online Saturday night and Sunday were claims that the attacker had been shot and killed at the scene — he had, in fact, been arrested — along with speculation about his motives and political alliances. After some posts received millions of views, authors sometimes posted corrections clarifying that the attacker was not killed, but these received only a fraction of the views.
“Rumors spread very quickly and then it often takes a very long time to correct these mistakes,” said Dr. Lamps.
Influencers have an incentive to post speculation and rumours, even if they don’t believe it: The attention it brings can be crucial to gaining followers, and on revenue-sharing platforms like X, it can mean bigger payouts.
For example, Mario Nawfal, an online influencer who has previously promoted Russian talking points, posted a collection of unsubstantiated theories on X on Sunday and then immediately said he didn’t believe them.
“My stance: I don’t believe any of the theories, I definitely don’t think it was staged,” he wrote at the end of the post, which has received more than 300,000 views.
X did not respond to a request for comment.
One Tech Word News clip that went viral Sunday featured a phone interview with Aishah Hasnie, the network’s White House correspondent, who attended the dinner. Her call dropped amid her first-hand account, leading some users to claim the network deliberately suppressed her story.
She later clarified in a post on X that the ballroom she was calling from had a weak signal.
“It takes time to find out the truth and find out the facts and reliable information,” said Amanda Crawford, an associate professor at the University of Connecticut who has studied media coverage of mass shootings and conspiracy theories. “But our viewers really don’t have that patience. And so immediately you see stories that are aimed at answering questions that people want to know often build on the preconceptions of the people who are sharing them.”
