The recent deaths of two notorious figures, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have highlighted a glaring inconsistency in how the media covers individuals with blood on their hands. The expectation that the legacy media should objectively report on such figures often falls short. In fact, the obituaries written for these men reveal a troubling trend — the glorification of violent leaders while trivializing their heinous acts.
When al-Baghdadi was killed in October 2019, the Washington Post initially characterized him as an “austere religious scholar.” This description belittled the man’s role as a brutal Islamist murderer whose actions led to countless deaths. The immediate outcry prompted a revision, yet the original framing remains a testament to the media’s reluctance to confront the cold reality of their subjects.
Fast forward to the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei in February 2026, and history seems ready to repeat itself. Though the New York Times painted Khamenei as a “hard-line cleric” who allegedly turned Iran into a “regional power,” the analysis seems to barely scratch the surface of the atrocities committed under his regime. While acknowledging his role in crushing dissent and working against U.S. interests, there’s still a hesitancy to label him with the same ferocity as they would for American figures with less blood on their hands.
Khamenei’s reign was marked by the brutal suppression of his own people, leading to tens of thousands of deaths. In 2026 alone, reports indicate he was responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 citizens as he sought to silence dissent. In stark contrast, figures like Rush Limbaugh or Scott Adams faced censure only for their unpopular opinions. The media’s understanding of morality seems warped when comparing the two. One preached divisive thoughts, while the other ruled a regime steeped in bloodshed.
Social media commentary on the discrepancies only adds fuel to the fire. Observers have pointed out with indignation that Khamenei’s obituary includes terms that humanize him, portraying him as an “avuncular” figure with a fondness for literature. This attempt to ground a man responsible for such inhumanity in relatable terms is a significant misstep. The devastating irony lies in juxtaposing Khamenei’s public persona with his reality — a leader who not only oppressed his people but did so with an effective military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, to enforce his will.
It’s hard to fathom how the legacy media continues this pattern. With the past six years offering ample opportunity for reflection, the expectation would be that reporters would strive for accuracy, yet it appears they have missed the memo. The narrative of the soft-spoken cleric distracts from the atrocities perpetrated in his name, while leaders like Khamenei walk away from the scrutiny that others face.
As society witnesses the trend in how these figures are remembered upon their passing, it raises troubling questions about the media’s role in shaping public perception. There is little doubt that the obituaries written for these men carry weight beyond their words; they can influence how history remembers the violent legacies they leave behind. Observers and critics alike will remain vigilant. Who, perhaps, will receive a glowing send-off next from the legacy media? The future headlines may well echo the same troubling themes, disguising the true nature of tyrants under the guise of allegedly more palatable descriptions.
"*" indicates required fields
