A man who abandoned his family to live as a woman and openly threatened to “Go BERSERK” in defense of transgender ideology shot and killed his son and the boy’s mother at a Rhode Island hockey game on Monday. But if you relied on corporate media, you’d think this was just another vague “family dispute,” because identifying ideological fanaticism apparently interferes with the narrative.
The shooter, Robert Dorgan, underwent surgery in 2020 to mimic female body parts and went by the name “Roberta Esposito,” according to the New York Post. Hours before the attack, he posted online, “Keep bashing us. But do not wonder why we Go BERSERK,” responding to a post that accurately described a cross-dressing congressman as male. Local outlet WPRI reported that Dorgan’s “gender identity played a role in multiple family disputes,” including his divorce. That detail, however, has been treated as radioactive by corporate media, which prefer to describe the killings as a neutral “family dispute,” as if ideology had nothing to do with it.
Pawtucket Police Chief Tina Goncalves told reporters that Dorgan’s transgender “status” “really doesn’t have anything to do with the investigation.” She even honored his identity by referring to him with plural pronouns at a press conference. Apparently, facts are optional now.
Major legacy outlets obediently followed her lead. At the New York Times, reporters Neil Vigdor and Thomas Gibbons-Neff spent space describing the neighborhood and even a quote above a rink entrance, but the only mention of the shooter’s identity was that he “also went by the name Roberta Esposito.” Earlier versions of the report were even more evasive, euphemizing the issue by saying he “went by two different names.” Very informative — if you’re allergic to reality.
The Associated Press, through reporter Kimberlee Kruesi, referred to Dorgan simply as “the shooter” and noted only in passing that he “also went by the name Roberta Esposito.” No mention of his ideological history, and no male pronouns either. The article ran in The Washington Post as well. A banner on the AP website promises “news without an agenda,” which is a bold claim right next to a story edited like this.
NBC News buried Dorgan’s name until paragraph seven and limited his identity to a single line about using the name Roberta Esposito. The article was filed under “Guns in America,” as if firearms, not fanaticism, were the headline. One of the authors regularly writes about how “transphobic” it is to keep men out of girls’ sports and how “heinous” J.K. Rowling is for defending biological reality. Funny how standards change when the shooter is on the “right” side of the ideology.
CNN went even further, using a passive headline — “Shooting at youth hockey game in Rhode Island leaves 2 dead, 3 injured” — and delaying identification of Dorgan until the third paragraph. The network repeatedly avoided male pronouns and stuck with “the shooter,” as though grammar itself needed counseling.
ESPN also refused to use male pronouns and limited its description to noting that Dorgan “also went by the name Roberta Esposito.” CBS News joined in, with editor Kiki Intarasuwan even using the plural pronoun “their” for a single person. Last year, a CBS correspondent reportedly faced backlash for suggesting the network avoid activist language. Apparently, that debate is over — and activism won.
The Guardian declined to mention Dorgan’s “Roberta” alias at all, and Politico published one piece before his identity became known and then quietly lost interest once it became inconvenient.
This incident followed closely on another attack in Canada by Jesse Van Rootselaar, a trans-identifying man described by police as a “gunperson.” Emergency alerts called him a “female in a dress,” and Reuters referred to him as an “18-year-old woman” until paragraph 11 clarified he had begun identifying as female years earlier. Accuracy, it seems, now has to wait its turn.
Across outlets, the pattern is clear: when ideology is involved and it conflicts with the preferred storyline, the media suddenly discover the power of vagueness, euphemism, and grammatical gymnastics. The public is left with half-truths wrapped in sensitivity language.
The good news is that Americans are noticing. People can see the difference between honest reporting and ideological shielding, and each attempt to rewrite reality only makes the truth more obvious. In the long run, facts have a way of winning — and the country is stronger when they do.
