Ken Dilanian, an MSNBC national security correspondent, is facing significant backlash for comments suggesting that the mere presence of uniformed National Guardsmen may have aggravated a shooting incident in a U.S. city. He referred to their deployment as reminiscent of “Trump’s Gestapo,” provoking outrage among many viewers and critics alike.
During a live segment following the event, Dilanian said, “People walking around with uniforms in an American city. There are some Americans that might object to that. And so apparently, this shooting has happened.” His framing raises concerns about the media’s role in inflating division and fostering a narrative that could incite hostility.
The event involves an unknown shooter who opened fire near National Guardsmen. Authorities have yet to provide details on the shooter or motive. However, Dilanian’s attempt to link the situation to political sentiment caught many off guard. A tweet criticizing his comments echoed loudly: “🚨 BREAKING: MSNOW’s Ken Dilanian is being RIPPED for saying today’s shooting might’ve occurred because Americans are scared these National Guardsmen are essentially Trump’s gestapo.” This tweet gained traction, sparking discussions about media bias and the implications of his rhetoric.
Critics have pointed out that Dilanian’s remarks exemplify a broader trend in which the media portrays law enforcement actions through a lens of suspicion and political equivalency. One Twitter user captured this sentiment, commenting, “Just when you think the media can’t get worse, they do.” National Guardsmen typically serve under state authority for purposes such as disaster relief, crowd control, or emergencies—not as a paramilitary force tied to any administration.
Experts argue that equating National Guard deployments with authoritarian regimes obscures the essential functions these personnel perform. A former Department of Defense legal advisor stated, “Deploying National Guardsmen in uniform to assist during times of civil unrest or emergency is not only legal, it’s standard practice in the United States.” This normalization challenges Dilanian’s suggestion that their presence could inherently be viewed as a threat.
In recent history, the National Guard has been activated over 200 times in various states for emergencies, such as wildfires, tornado recovery, and even vaccine distribution during the pandemic. These instances reflect lawful response mechanisms rather than any coercive intentions. Critics contend that linking such operations to historical fascism is both reckless and detrimental, especially given how such narratives play into disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining public confidence in government institutions.
The rhetoric surrounding Dilanian’s statement sheds light on a broader media landscape, where narrative choices can influence public perception. His comments align with a pattern observed during politically charged events, such as the 2020 protests after George Floyd’s death. At that time, some media figures drew a parallel between National Guard deployments and a creeping militarization of society, further widening anxieties around enforcement actions.
One former law enforcement official questioned Dilanian’s approach, observing, “It’s telling that Dilanian didn’t focus on the shooter or the criminal act. Instead, he tried to create a narrative where the mere presence of Americans in uniform is a provocation.” This perspective underscores how skewed media portrayals can shape public opinion and, in some instances, foster mistrust against lawful authorities.
Gallup data illustrates the growing distrust in media, showing a decline from 53% of Americans expressing confidence in mass media a decade ago to only 34% in 2023. Political affiliation further complicates this trust deficit, with only 14% of Republicans voicing confidence in the media compared to 58% of Democrats. This growing disconnect emphasizes the importance of balanced, careful reporting, particularly during crises.
Dilanian provided a narrative that could potentially erode the public’s confidence during a critical time. While no evidence suggests that the shooting was linked to the National Guard, his comments have led to a wider conversation about how language used in media can misrepresent situations and stir unrest. Social media users quickly pointed out the absurdity: one commenter noted, “Imagine risking your life in uniform for your country, only to have a network say you remind people of a dictator’s secret police.”
The fallout from such statements is significant. There is precedent for how charged rhetoric can escalate tensions in American communities. Following a MSNBC contributor’s characterization of federal ICE agents as “domestic terrorists,” there was a noted increase in vandalism at immigration offices. Similarly, commentary surrounding the January 6th events has been linked to increased threats against law enforcement personnel. Such examples reveal the real-world implications of inflammatory language.
As the incident develops, it remains essential to note the implications of CNN and MSNBC’s editorial decisions, particularly in a political climate rife with division. Misrepresentation of government actions doesn’t just draw criticism—it can deteriorate public trust and subsequently hinder effective law enforcement.
Dilanian’s framing of uniformed personnel as agents of division rather than protectors could have serious repercussions for those in the field. Ultimately, the facts surrounding the shooting will come to light, yet Dilanian’s comments stand as a reminder of the complex relationship between media narratives and public perception. The absence of accountability in his rhetoric leaves room for serious distortion of realities that serve the public good.
As of now, MSNBC has not issued any clarification or response regarding Dilanian’s controversial remarks.
"*" indicates required fields
