Misguided ‘doomers’ celebrating assassins online need to learn how to debate, rather than encourage evil ghouls
New York Post
Overall Assessment
The article frames online reactions to alleged attacks on Sam Altman and Donald Trump through a moralistic lens, emphasizing extreme and violent commentary. It uses emotionally charged language and selective quoting to portray AI critics as dangerously radicalized. The reporting lacks balance, context, and neutrality, functioning more as editorial condemnation than objective journalism.
"Misguided ‘doomers’ celebrating assassins online need to learn how to debate, rather than encourage evil ghouls"
Sensationalism
Headline & Lead 30/100
The headline frames online commentary as morally repugnant and irrational, using inflammatory language that signals strong editorial judgment rather than neutral reporting.
✕ Sensationalism: The headline uses emotionally charged language like 'doomers', 'evil ghouls', and 'celebrating assassins' to provoke outrage rather than neutrally describe online reactions.
"Misguided ‘doomers’ celebrating assassins online need to learn how to debate, rather than encourage evil ghouls"
✕ Loaded Language: The term 'evil ghouls' is a pejorative label that dehumanizes individuals with whom the author disagrees, undermining journalistic neutrality.
"rather than encourage evil ghouls"
Language & Tone 25/100
The tone is highly judgmental, using moral condemnation and emotionally charged language to frame AI critics as dangerous and irrational.
✕ Loaded Language: The article repeatedly uses emotionally loaded terms like 'madman', 'sick celebration', and 'shocking callousness' to describe actors and online reactions, shaping reader perception negatively.
"Then on Saturday a madman trying to assassinate President Donald Trump, the third known attempt, was thwarted in Washington DC."
✕ Editorializing: The author injects personal moral judgment by calling reactions 'shocking' and 'callous', rather than letting readers assess the content independently.
"The shocking callousness is rooted in real anxiety among Gen Z..."
✕ Framing By Emphasis: The article emphasizes extreme and violent online comments while not balancing them with broader context or mainstream opposition to violence.
"“More, more, MORE” and “a hero is born.”"
Balance 40/100
While some data and quotes are properly attributed, the sourcing is skewed toward extreme online voices, lacking representation from credible AI ethics experts or broader public sentiment.
✓ Proper Attribution: The article attributes specific quotes to Reddit and Instagram users, and cites polling data from Gallup and YouGov, which adds verifiability.
"An April Gallup poll found that Gen Z has been souring on AI at a rapid pace."
✕ Cherry Picking: The article selects only the most extreme online comments to represent 'AI doomers', without including voices from AI safety advocates who reject violence.
"“Altman is the anti-christ, he will destroy humanity if it benefits him,”"
✕ Vague Attribution: Phrases like 'some say' and 'others wrote' are used without identifying specific users or sources, reducing accountability.
"Others wrote, “More, more, MORE” and “a hero is born.”"
Completeness 35/100
The article lacks critical context about the legal status of the cases, the complexity of motivations, and the broader online discourse rejecting violence.
✕ Omission: The article fails to mention that the alleged attacks on Altman are under investigation and that the motives of the suspects may not be fully known or solely AI-related.
✕ Misleading Context: By drawing direct parallels between the Altman incidents and the Mangione case without evidence of ideological links, the article implies a coordinated movement that may not exist.
"Many internet users are drawing parallels between these incidents and alleged United Healthcare CEO killer Luigi Mangione."
✕ Cherry Picking: The article highlights only supportive online comments for violence, omitting widespread condemnation of such acts on the same platforms.
"“Good on you, best news I’ve heard all day.”"
Public discourse framed as descending into violent extremism
The article uses emotionally charged language and selective quoting to suggest a breakdown in civil debate, emphasizing extreme calls for violence as representative of broader online sentiment.
"The reaction online exposes a marked collective comfort with violence as a political tool."
AI portrayed as an existential threat to humanity
The article amplifies extreme online rhetoric framing AI as a destructive force, using quotes that depict AI leaders as apocalyptic figures.
"“Altman is the anti-christ, he will destroy humanity if it benefits him,” one Reddit user said."
AI and its leaders framed as adversarial to public good
By highlighting comparisons of Altman to a villain and AI development as a justification for violence, the article reinforces a narrative of AI as an antagonistic force.
"Many internet users are drawing parallels between these incidents and alleged United Healthcare CEO killer Luigi Mangione. For AI doomers, Moreno-Gama is another version of Mangione — or Robin Hood."
Gen Z framed as morally callous and prone to violence
The article links Gen Z to a rising acceptance of political violence through polling data and anecdotal quotes, framing the generation as uniquely dangerous in its response to technological change.
"According to a 2025 YouGov poll, the idea is more and more trendy among younger generations. While just 6% of senior citizens say that political violence can be justifiable, 19% of Zoomers say the same (notably, another 15% declined to answer the survey question)."
Online communities portrayed as fostering dangerous, untrustworthy ideologies
The article selectively quotes anonymous users celebrating violence, implying a broader culture of moral decay in online spaces without balancing it with moderation efforts or counter-narratives.
"“Keep em coming,” another chimed in to the online thread. And a third, “Good on you, best news I’ve heard all day.”"
The article frames online reactions to alleged attacks on Sam Altman and Donald Trump through a moralistic lens, emphasizing extreme and violent commentary. It uses emotionally charged language and selective quoting to portray AI critics as dangerously radicalized. The reporting lacks balance, context, and neutrality, functioning more as editorial condemnation than objective journalism.
Recent alleged attacks on OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and an incident targeting President Trump have sparked varied online reactions, with some expressing support on social media. Polling data shows growing anxiety about AI among Gen Z, while surveys indicate a small but notable share of younger Americans view political violence as justifiable. The events have prompted discussions about extremism, technology, and public safety.
New York Post — Other - Crime
Based on the last 60 days of articles
New York Post
No related content