Written by James Whitaker.
In a bizarre twist of fate, Taylor Lorenz, once a journalist for The Washington Post, has taken a sharp detour from her former career in reporting to something far darker. After the shocking assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, Lorenz did not simply report on the tragedy or offer condolences. Instead, she posted the photograph and name of Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Kim A. Keck, following news about a new policy on anesthesia coverage. But that was just the beginning. Lorenz’s social media response escalated quickly, calling on her followers to identify all insurance company CEOs and engage in “very peaceful letter-writing campaigns.”
However, this statement came paired with another one posted on Bluesky Social that read, “And people wonder why we want these executives dead.” It’s a sentiment that cast a long, uncomfortable shadow over the entire incident. Was she simply critiquing the insurance policies, or was she subtly advocating for something far more violent? The timing of her rhetoric, coupled with the circumstances of the CEO’s assassination, raised unsettling questions about whether this was an instance of journalistic integrity being cast aside in favor of something more nefarious. Was it a call for accountability, or a dangerous invitation for something more?
Public Backlash: A Social Media Firestorm
It didn’t take long for Lorenz’s comments to light a firestorm on social media. The reaction was swift and fierce, with many labeling her actions as “completely unhinged.” One of the more vocal critics was the Twitter account Libs of TikTok, which had previously been targeted by Lorenz for doxxing. The public outcry from the conservative side was just as explosive, with figures like Tim Pool expressing shock and disbelief. “Holy f**k,” Pool commented, in response to her blatant disregard for the consequences of her words.
Rather than backpedaling or issuing an apology, Lorenz doubled down on her stance, sharing a meme that celebrated the CEO’s death. This, of course, only intensified the outrage. By celebrating a violent death, Lorenz not only appeared to endorse it but gave the impression that such actions were justifiable. In doing so, she blurred the line between journalistic criticism and active incitement. The chilling question was raised: how far could media figures push their rhetoric before it could be considered advocating for harm rather than informing the public?
The Moral Dilemma: Journalism vs. Incitement
The incident sparked an urgent debate over the moral and ethical responsibilities of those in the media. Political commentator Glenn Beck voiced his concern, stating that Lorenz’s framing of the CEO’s murder as a form of justice was deeply misguided. “This is not justice,” Beck pointed out, “this is vengeance.” He raised the critical issue of whether public figures with large platforms should be held accountable for their words when they cross into dangerous territory.
Lorenz’s statements certainly begged the question: where does the line between activism and journalism lie? In modern times, social media has become a potent tool for political advocacy, but it’s also made it easier for reckless rhetoric to spread like wildfire. In Lorenz’s case, her words seemed to encourage a sense of vigilante justice, subtly suggesting that violence could be justified when it served her political agenda. What’s more alarming is the influence of such rhetoric, especially considering the platform Lorenz commands as a journalist. This moment has underscored the troubling shift in the media landscape, where ethics seem to have become secondary to personal vendettas.
Our Take
What Taylor Lorenz has done here is more than just a misstep—it’s a serious breach of journalistic ethics. When someone with the reach and influence of Lorenz encourages her followers to take action against corporate leaders, it’s not just dangerous; it’s reckless. Her words do more than fuel a political divide—they threaten the very foundation of civil discourse.
This is bad for the public because it fosters a culture where political disagreements are resolved not through reasoned debate, but through threats and violence. What Lorenz has done is essentially undermine the idea that problems can be solved through dialogue or the democratic process. When journalists like her use their platform to incite rage, the consequences can be far-reaching, not just for the individuals targeted, but for society as a whole. Instead of working to build understanding, Lorenz has contributed to a society where violence is seen as an acceptable response. This is not the way forward, and it’s a dangerous precedent for the media.
