OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Investigators Review Possible New Ransom Note in Nancy Guthrie Case

6 sources · updated 2026-09-30
Left 50% Center 17% Right 33%
3 left · 1 center · 2 right

What happened

Nancy Guthrie, the 84-year-old mother of NBC “Today” host Savannah Guthrie, disappeared from her home outside Tucson, Arizona, on February 1. Two ransom notes sent days later to a Tucson television station—one on February 2 demanding $4 million in cryptocurrency for her release, and one on February 6 claiming she had died shortly after being taken—were released by authorities in July; no suspects have been arrested. On Monday, nearly eight months after the disappearance, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department said the department and the FBI Guthrie Task Force had recently been made aware of a new possible ransom note and related social media comments, and that investigators are working to determine the note’s credibility. Officials did not release the note’s contents or how it was found, and have not said whether Guthrie is still alive. The Guthrie family is offering a $1 million reward for information leading to her recovery, and the FBI is offering $100,000.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 6 articles

6 of 6 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 6 of 6
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Pima County Sheriff’s Department, FBI Guthrie Task Force, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos, sheriff's department, sheriff’s department and Pima county sheriff’s department
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 6
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 6
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 6
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 29, 04:34 UTC by NewsNation, naming its source.
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage places this letter after a proven fake already punished in court; left-leaning coverage does not. A California man was sentenced for writing a fake ransom note, Breitbart reports, and a sheriff's spokesperson voiced "some skepticism" about the new one. Left-leaning coverage, including ABC News, says only that investigators are determining credibility, with no mention of that hoax conviction. Right-leaning coverage reprints the original notes at length, while left-leaning coverage summarizes them. The February threats and apology lead the New York Post account. Left-leaning coverage compresses that history into a brief recap of the cryptocurrency demand and the later claim that she died. None of the coverage answers what the new note says, who received it, or when it arrived.
Bottom line

If you read ABC News on the new Guthrie ransom note, you would not know someone has already been sentenced for faking one. Breitbart pairs that conviction with police skepticism.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • A California man was sentenced after pleading guilty to penning a fake ransom note in the Nancy Guthrie case. individual casein Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The Guthrie family is offering a $1 million reward for information that leads to recovery. numberin New York Post, Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • An earlier ransom note included precise home details such as a smashed backyard floodlight. contextin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The FBI released surveillance video of a masked person who appeared to tamper with a camera on Nancy Guthrie's front porch. official statementin ABC News, The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Investigators have not said how many people took part in the abduction or whether she was taken by someone who knew her. contextin ABC News, The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets treated the announcement as a limited, unverified investigative update, quoting the sheriff’s department that investigators are reviewing the possible note and “social media comments about the note to determine its credibility,” while noting officials released no details on the note’s origin or contents. They framed the broader case as still unresolved and “dogged by unanswered questions,” including how many people took part and whether the abductor knew her, and they pointed to earlier FBI surveillance of a masked person tampering with a porch camera and to the family’s public pleas for information.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets cast the same statement as police seeking an “elusive breakthrough” in a stalled hunt, reproducing the February notes’ threats and later apology and citing forensic psychologist Gary Brucato’s suggestion that the two notes had different authors, possibly including someone who knew Savannah Guthrie. They reported that a California man had already been sentenced for writing a fake ransom note in the case, that a Pima County spokesperson expressed “some skepticism” about the new note’s validity, and that earlier notes contained precise home details—a smashed backyard floodlight and a white smartwatch on the bedroom floor—that had suggested authenticity. Breitbart added that if the new note proved genuine, “it could offer a sign that the 84-year-old is still alive.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest point is that the sheriff’s own language—investigators only recently “made aware” of a “possible” note and still determining “credibility,” with no contents released—supports treating this as an unconfirmed lead rather than a case-changing development. The right’s strongest point is that the investigation has already mixed apparently knowledgeable notes with at least one proven fake, so the live question is authenticity, and a genuine later note would sit in tension with the February 6 claim that Guthrie had died. The central unresolved tension is whether this third note is another hoax amplified by social media or a credible communication that could reopen the question of whether Nancy Guthrie is still alive.

6 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.