In the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a pattern has emerged in media coverage that labels ordinary citizens expressing opposition or grief as “far right” extremists. This tactic, employed by outlets often aligned with progressive viewpoints, seeks to delegitimize dissent by associating it with fringe ideologies. For instance, following Kirk’s fatal shooting at a Utah university event, as reported by the BBC, reactions from everyday people mourning the loss have been swiftly branded as part of a radical wave, overshadowing the genuine shock and calls for justice.

Similar dynamics are playing out across the Atlantic in Britain, where protests against what demonstrators describe as unchecked immigration and cultural shifts have been dismissed en masse as “far right” agitation. Millions have taken to the streets, voicing concerns over social media arrests and perceived threats to national identity, yet media narratives frame these as orchestrated by extremists rather than reflecting widespread frustration. This mirrors a broader strategy where average individuals are painted with a broad brush to stifle debate.

The Double Standard in Labeling Extremism

Critics argue that this labeling is not only inconsistent but hypocritical. While those opposing Kirk’s murder or UK immigration policies are quickly dubbed “far right,” there is a notable absence of the “far left” tag for those celebrating the assassination online or advocating radical societal changes. Posts on X, formerly Twitter, reveal sentiments from users decrying this imbalance, highlighting how media avoids scrutinizing left-leaning extremism, such as calls for vengeance or doxxing that followed Kirk’s death, as detailed in a WIRED article.

This is who the Left is motivating with their “Far Right” propaganda:

The irony deepens when examining European contexts, where leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán have condemned Kirk’s killing as a product of “international hate campaigns” from the left, according to The Guardian. Yet, the same outlets rarely apply equivalent scrutiny to progressive movements pushing for transformative policies that some view as anti-democratic.

Global Patterns of Media Marginalization

Worldwide, this phenomenon extends beyond isolated incidents. A study cited in NewsBusters from June 2025 reveals media’s disproportionate focus on “far right” threats while remaining “nearly blind” to far-left extremism, even amid rising violence during the early Trump administration. In the U.S., only 6% of citizens identify as far right, per a 2018 Fortune report, suggesting that labeling average protesters as such inflates perceptions of extremism to marginalize mainstream views.

In Britain, the narrative around protests against “third world invasion”—a term used by some demonstrators—has led to swift arrests for social media posts, fueling accusations of totalitarian overreach. X posts from users like those expressing outrage over grooming gangs and terrorist attacks underscore a sentiment that media smears are gaslighting the public, portraying legitimate fears as bigotry rather than addressing root causes.

Consequences for Public Discourse

The repercussions of these smears are profound, eroding trust in media and polarizing societies further. After Kirk’s death, right-wing activists targeted individuals for allegedly celebrating online, resulting in job losses and threats, as covered by The New York Times. This cycle of retaliation highlights how biased labeling escalates tensions, turning grief into vengeance.

Moreover, international networks of far-right groups are expanding, as noted in a February 2025 DW analysis, but the media’s focus on them often ignores parallel left-wing radicalism. In Argentina and Italy, leaders like Javier Milei and Giorgia Meloni represent a counterwave, yet coverage frames opposition as extremist without balanced critique of progressive ideologies.

Toward a More Balanced Narrative

To counteract this, experts call for journalism that prioritizes facts over ideological branding. A New Internationalist piece from September 2025 warns of a global far-right surge threatening democracy, but urges addressing underlying issues like immigration and cultural shifts without demonizing protesters. By avoiding smears, media could foster dialogue instead of division.

Ultimately, the persistent labeling of average people as “far right” for opposing events like Kirk’s assassination or UK policies reveals more about media biases than the protesters themselves. As sentiments on X and reports from Al Jazeera show, this tactic risks alienating the masses, potentially backfiring by radicalizing those it seeks to marginalize.