The Washington Post has come under fire for its coverage following the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump. Critics argue that the publication’s response reflects a bias towards left-wing narratives, especially concerning the rhetoric surrounding Trump.

On Sunday, Michael Scherer of The Washington Post published an article with the headline, “Trump allies immediately blame Biden, Democrats for their rhetoric,” suggesting that Trump supporters were quick to accuse President Biden and Democrats of inciting violence through their portrayals of Trump as a threat to democracy. Scherer’s piece emphasized that the shooter’s motive was not known at the time, framing the Republicans’ reactions as speculative.

Top Trump allies, including Sens. J.D. Vance and Tim Scott, accused Biden and his supporters of contributing to the toxic political climate that may have led to the attack. However, Scherer noted that there was no public reporting on the shooter’s motives when these statements were made.

Critics argue that The Washington Post has consistently pushed a narrative that frames Trump and his supporters as a danger to democracy, while downplaying or ignoring the role of inflammatory rhetoric from the left. The publication’s slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” has often been used to criticize Trump, portraying him as an authoritarian figure.

The article also highlighted Biden’s condemnation of the attack and his call for national unity, though critics question the sincerity of these statements given the divisive language used by Biden throughout his presidency. The Washington Post reiterated that other Trump supporters blamed Biden and the media for the shooting, despite a lack of information about the shooter’s motives.

This approach by The Washington Post has been seen by some as hypocritical, given past accusations that Trump’s rhetoric could incite violence. Journalists like Jim Acosta have frequently warned that Trump’s language was dangerous, without facing similar scrutiny for a lack of direct evidence.

The article pointed out Trump’s own use of inflammatory language, citing his descriptions of political enemies as “vermin,” his warnings of a “bloodbath” if he lost the election, and his portrayal of some undocumented migrants as “animals.” Critics argue that this portrayal ignores the context of Trump’s statements and equates his rhetoric with calls for violence.

The Washington Post also recounted Biden’s 2020 campaign promise to unite the country and prevent violence like the 2017 Charlottesville protest. Critics contend that Biden has not fulfilled this promise and that The Washington Post should recognize its own role in perpetuating division.

As the nation grapples with the implications of the attack on Trump, the response from major media outlets like The Washington Post continues to be a point of contention. The ongoing debate highlights the need for balanced reporting and accountability in political discourse to prevent further escalation of violence and division.