KQED’s Rachael Myrow spoke with Aniano about which conspiracy theories had gained the most momentum in the wake of the shooting and why.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Rachael Myrow: For the benefit of people unfamiliar with how you do the work you do, where do you start to look when high-profile events like this happen? What are you looking for?
Sara Aniano: Basically, what we are looking for are the top themes. What are the most salient and problematic? It will all trickle down, or trickle up, from the prominent people to the not-so-prominent people. We look at influencers, especially those in the disinformation or extremist worlds because they have so much influence.
Along these lines, we should just go through the list of, you know, classic categories of conspiracy theories. For example, who’s operating in the anti-Semitic space? This doesn’t seem like one that would make sense, given that Trump has been pro-Israel and even pro [Benjamin] Netanyahu in the past, as has President Joe Biden.
This particular kind of conspiracy theory, as you can imagine, is not terribly original. They just blame Jews at any and all opportunity that they can, to promote the narrative that Jews are evil, and working alongside the nefarious and secretive Deep State, and actively trying to dismantle the democratic process, the electoral process.
There was a space on X titled Jews Try to Assassinate Trump, which featured a number of problematic individuals. We saw similar theories about the Baltimore Bridge collapse, which is such a different event. A lot of people will blame the JFK assassination on the Jews. So, there’s a historical precedent for trying to demonize Jews as responsible for the upheaval of the country.
But when you’re a conspiracy theorist, you have already arrived at your conclusion. You can always find dots to connect retroactively, right? It’s not evidence of a conspiracy, but you can make it look like evidence of a conspiracy.
Who are the people that were speculating about the involvement of the Deep State? How did they make the dots connect?
There are some predictable folks sharing “The Deep State Did It” theory. Laura Loomer is one, Alex Jones is another. This alleged Deep State, which is almost always referring to the left, has to regain control, and they are working from the inside out to take out Trump. That’s been the main premise for QAnon. So again, that is another narrative that is just easy, because of the nature of the highly politicized, highly partisan nature of what happened.
There’s also, on the left, “The Republicans Did It” theory. The idea that it’s just too convenient. This is too much of a boost to the Trump campaign. Was that real blood streaming down his face or, you know, a ketchup packet on his cheek? Who’s making that argument?
There were highly graphic videos circulating that showed really every moment. Start to finish. It’s all out there. That part is not shrouded in mystery. It was actually made quite available to the public very quickly. In part, thanks to photojournalists, but also thanks to on-the-ground witnesses who were documenting it at the time.
When people see shocking, traumatizing, and frankly remarkable footage like that, it scares people. People on the left understand how the story could be used politically to drum up sympathy. There is no evidence that this was staged or incited by the Trump campaign. The reality is, we don’t have a lot of information on the [gunman’s] motive as to why.
Is there an argument to be made that we should all have the space to work out in public what happened last weekend? The various social media platforms are spaces for people to have open, honest conversations, even if they’re idiots, or maliciously minded, or willing to lie.
We always call upon social media platforms to limit as much hate and extremist rhetoric on their platforms as possible. Confusion and legitimate questions are harder to police. I mean, what’s the first thing I did when I wanted to know what was going on after the assassination attempt? I went on social media. That’s very natural. I understand why people want to ask questions and throw theories out there. I don’t know that the public generally understands how damaging that is when it’s coming from millions and millions of people all at once, from influencers to the average user.
That is all the more reason for the user to be responsible. By that, I mean don’t reshare every new theory you see. Make sure that something is actually credible before you reshare it. Maybe you don’t share anything at all.
Over the weekend, people started coming to me with questions because I’m a reporter. My first reaction was — really my honest reaction — was just, “I don’t know. We don’t know yet.”
But these days, we can all do what many of the major papers were doing, which is, you know, review the video and listen to people who are experts in Secret Service-style protection of political candidates and attempt to come up with a working theory. You’re not a bad person for trying to parse out what’s happening.
But also, maybe you need to just question yourself if your go-to, gut reaction is that there must be some way in which this incident fits into that unified field theory of politics you have. In other words, question yourself.
It sounds conspiratorial to use the phrase “Question everything.” But what I mean is, have a healthy amount of suspicion when the first thing you see is the most salacious thing. Right? The “power of pause” cannot be overstated. Normalize saying, “I don’t know.” But also, have patience because, with a case as serious as this, we’re going to have to understand that the [gunman’s] motive may never be clear. It’s just too early to say.
Are we likely to see one or more conspiracy theories metastasize before the election? Precisely because we’re in a contested election?
In sports, they say, “There’s a lot of game left.” I would use that analogy here. There’s a lot that could change between now and November. Journalists will have their work cut out for them this coming election.
If there is a motive or an ideology [that explains] the shooter, that could also change everything. If there is no information about the shooter, then you can kind of tell whatever story you want to tell about who he was. Which is also dangerous. So, the ask is always for more answers, and the hope is always for a clear conclusion. But the expectation is that it might be somewhere in the middle and that the false and misleading narratives will pick up on whatever that is.
Not all shocking, earth-shattering things are the product of a conspiracy. This is just … history.
