ABC reporter Matt Gutman has stirred strong reactions this week after his commentary during a press conference following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. During coverage of the suspect, Gutman described texts the alleged assassin sent as “very touching” and “intimate,” sparking accusations from critics who claimed his tone was insensitive given the gravity of the violence involved.
What Happened at the Press Conference
In early September 2025, during a public briefing about the arrest of Tyler Robinson, the suspect accused in the killing of Charlie Kirk, ABC’s live feed included statements from Robinson’s lawyer. Robinson had allegedly sent emotionally intense messages to a partner shortly after the crime.
Matt Gutman, reporting for ABC, drew attention by calling those messages both “very touching” and “intimate.” He emphasized the contrast between Robinson’s violent act and the text messages to suggest a dual nature: one of destructive behavior, and another of emotion and affection.
That characterization drew widespread criticism. Observers said Gutman’s description waivered too close to empathy for someone accused of a heinous act. Public commentary agreed that invoking language like “very touching” risked appearing to humanize an alleged assailant in harmful ways.
Response and Controversy
The backlash came quickly:
- Political figures and media commentators criticized the statement as inappropriate, tone-deaf, or even as glorifying.
- Social media posts expressed disbelief that a journalist could use such sympathetic adjectives toward someone accused in such a violent crime.
- Some demanded that ABC issue a correction or take disciplinary steps; others questioned editorial oversight.
Matt Gutman and ABC did not immediately retreat from the characterization, framing his commentary as part of reporting on the full context of Robinson’s communications. Still, the controversy raised broader questions about media ethics when dealing with suspects in violent cases.
Gutman’s Background: Why His Words Carry Weight
As ABC’s Chief National Correspondent, Matt Gutman’s reporting reaches a wide audience. He appears regularly on major ABC broadcasts including “World News Tonight,” “Good Morning America,” “20/20,” and “Nightline.” He has reported from dozens of countries and has covered many high-profile and emotionally intense events.
Gutman has also published books. His 2018 work, The Boys in the Cave, documented the Thai cave rescue story. In 2023, he released No Time to Panic: How I Curbed My Anxiety and Conquered a Lifetime of Panic Attacks, in which he opened up publicly about his own struggle with anxiety, panic attacks, and how those experiences inform both his life and his work.
His reputation as a courageous reporter is tempered by openness about his vulnerabilities. This duality—strong on-scene reporting and personal honesty—amplifies audience expectations and scrutiny of his public statements.
Mental Health, Reporting, and Public Perception
Matt Gutman’s own journey with anxiety and disclosure of panic attacks plays into how the public receives his work. Because he has shared that he experiences anxiety and once had a panic attack while reporting, audiences have a window into how his perceptions might shape his reporting.
In No Time to Panic, Gutman described how stress, high stakes, and personal history have contributed to his anxiety, and how he’s adopted various coping methods. These personal struggles make him more relatable to many viewers, but they also mean that when he uses emotive language — like describing texts from a suspect as “touching” — audiences are primed to see that through the lens of his emotional style.
Recent Public Commentary and Criticism
The fallout from this week’s press conference is part of a pattern: around contentious moments, Gutman’s empathetic language or framing often becomes focal points. Some media analysts argue that journalists must walk a fine line: reporting facts without appearing to normalize or sympathize with criminal acts.
Among the criticisms this week:
- That describing texts from an accused murderer as “very touching” risks humanizing the suspect inappropriately.
- That the juxtaposition of affectionate text-tone with murderous conduct could undermine the seriousness of the crime in the eyes of victims or society.
- That as a respected reporter, Gutman must calibrate tone to public sensitivity, especially in live coverage of criminal cases.
Supporters of his view say that full reporting requires including context — including the human side of all involved, even when actions are horrific. They argue that depicting contradictory dimensions in people (violent acts + personal relationships) does not excuse crime, but paints a fuller picture.
Career Milestones & What’s Next
Besides this controversy, ABC reporter Matt Gutman remains active in major reporting assignments. He continues to cover international and domestic news of high consequence, from natural disasters to political moments and human-interest stories with emotional weight.
His book on anxiety remains a touchpoint in interviews and public appearance. He travels, gives lectures, and often uses his platform to speak about mental health, often referencing No Time to Panic and how his experiences inform his perspective on storytelling under pressure.
Given recent backlash, many observers will be watching how ABC and Gutman respond going forward — whether tone changes, clarifications are issued, or whether editorial reviews adjust.
Why This Incident Resonates
This latest controversy underlines some broader themes for modern journalism:
- The role of tone in reporting, especially when suspects display contradictory behavior (e.g., alleged violence + intimate messages).
- How journalists manage emotional language vs objective reporting.
- The influence of a reporter’s own reputation and past openness on how their words are interpreted.
Matt Gutman’s long tenure, public reputation, and recent admissions of anxiety place him in a unique position: people expect both factual reporting and emotional sensitivity from him, which makes missteps or provocative language more noticeable.
Matt Gutman’s recent remarks have triggered intense discussion — not only about that particular case, but about journalistic responsibility, accuracy, and tone. While ABC reporter Matt Gutman continues to deliver significant stories from around the world, this moment serves as a reminder that every word matters in live reporting.
What do you think — should reporters use empathetic language in stories about accused criminals, or is absolute objectivity the safer route? Let me know your view in the comments below.