When a listener typed “you two are next” at 93 WIBC hosts Jason Hammer and Nigel Laskowski just two days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the pair made a choice not everyone in their position would make. They didn’t ignore it. They didn’t quietly pass it along to station management and hope the situation resolved itself.
Instead, they tagged the Indianapolis Police and the FBI directly to the tweet — putting the threat on record and putting the man who issued it in the crosshairs of accountability.
That took guts. And it deserves recognition.
The moment was jarring. Kirk’s murder had shaken the news/talk radio world, and the wound was still fresh when that tweet appeared. The two hosts were doing what news/talk hosts do — talking through a major story — and someone responded with a public threat. The timing made it worse, but the reality is that threats like this don’t require a national tragedy as a backdrop to be dangerous.
You Can’t Afford to Wait and See
Some in the industry take a different approach. I’ve spoken with a host in a large market who received death threats that eventually became part of an FBI investigation. That host, however, chose not to go public. The reasoning was understandable — visibility cuts both ways, and drawing more attention to threats can sometimes invite more of them. It’s a legitimate concern, and one that deserves respect.
But Hammer and Laskowski chose differently. By tagging law enforcement publicly, they accomplished something beyond simply filing a report. They created a record, they signaled that the behavior wouldn’t be tolerated, and they gave the situation the kind of sunlight that makes bad actors think twice.
That’s not recklessness. That’s self-preservation with purpose.
There’s no perfect playbook for handling threats. But the “stay quiet and hope it goes away” strategy carries real risk too — especially in the immediate aftermath of a high-profile murder. The two days following Kirk’s assassination were tense across the industry. News/talk hosts were already on edge. In that climate, dismissing any threat as idle venting feels like a gamble no one should have to take.
Accountability Is the Point
Ultimately, what Hammer and Laskowski did wasn’t just smart — it was right. People who issue public death threats deserve public consequences. If someone types a threat on social media and faces a criminal charge for it, that outcome sends a message. It tells the next person who considers doing the same thing that words carry weight and that there’s a cost to threatening someone’s life.
That deterrent effect matters. It won’t eliminate threats entirely — nothing will. But it shifts the calculus. And the more often hosts respond the way these two did, the more that calculus shifts toward caution.
News/talk radio hosts shouldn’t have to factor personal safety concerns into the job description. They already navigate political blowback, advertiser pressure, and an increasingly turbulent media landscape. Adding legitimate fears for their physical safety to that list is too much. When law enforcement gets involved and charges follow, that’s the system working the way it should.
It isn’t easy to step into that process. It invites scrutiny, and it prolongs an uncomfortable situation. Hammer and Laskowski pushed through that discomfort anyway — and they’re better advocates for the industry because of it.
That kind of fortitude deserves more than a passing mention. It deserves to be held up as a model.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Garrett Searight is Barrett Media’s News Editor, which includes writing daily news stories, features, and opinion columns. He joined Barrett Media in 2022 after a decade leading several radio brands in several formats, as well as a 5-year stint working in local television. In addition to his work with Barrett Media, he is a radio and TV play-by-play broadcaster. Reach out to him at Garrett@BarrettMedia.com.
