It originated as a form of collective narrative control, the source of which is thus far unknown. It was based around the fact that the killer's parents live in a 'red' area and quickly followed up with photos of the killer together with his family at gun shows, the killer wearing a Halloween costume in which he was supposedly riding around on Trump's neck (which I do not see as a pro-Trump statement but that aside). This narrative control was picked up by nearly all of the big actors in the legacy media and in some form still lingers. Kimmel is (or was, that remains to be seen) part of the legacy media and just did what was required of him. The attempt at narrative control failed when clear evidence of the killer's left-leaning political stance and motivation for the assassination surfaced and ABC - still reeling from its other failed attempts at controlling the narrative, remember the edited Harris interview - clearly saw him as a liability and reacted accordingly.
> It originated as a form of collective narrative control, the source of which is thus far unknown.
That's the part I am curious about. Some clues like the killer's parents I can see, but the bullet markings and riding on Trump's back doesn't point in that direction at all.
I think it would be interesting to study the origin of the narrative. In the most innocent interpretation it's a broken telephone starting with "wouldn't be nice if it was ...", to "I bet it was ...", to then "it was ..." and by the time it gets to Jimmy it's (sources familiar with the matter tell us) that "we definitely know...". But, I wonder if it was a bit more organized, as in people worked together to spread the story more effectively. However, that also means they didn't even think it through one step ahead when the police catch the guy, so that seems iffy.
