Could Rob Reiner’s account have been compromised, or did he explain why he edited or deleted the post?

1. What the press has actually reported: the timeline and the targets

Mainstream outlets are reporting that Rob and Michele Reiner were found dead in their Brentwood home and that their son, Nick Reiner, was arrested on suspicion of murder; reporters and wire services then focused on President Trump’s post on Truth Social that appeared to blame Rob Reiner’s politics for the killing, triggering swift bipartisan condemnation ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

2. No coverage of account compromise or Reiner’s explanation

In the set of articles provided — including Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, NPR and The Guardian — none report that Rob Reiner’s social-media accounts were hacked, compromised or used to post or delete messages, nor do they report that Reiner explained why he edited or removed any post; those specific claims are not found in current reporting (available sources do not mention account compromise or Reiner explaining edits/deletions) ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}.

3. What journalists did cover about online posts and reactions

Reporting concentrated on President Trump’s Truth Social message — where he called Reiner “tortured and struggling” and blamed a supposed “Trump Derangement Syndrome” for the deaths — and on the broad, bipartisan backlash from lawmakers, celebrities and commentators who said it politicized a family tragedy ^{[3] [5] [1]}. Outlets described the post’s language and noted it came before a full motive had been publicly established by investigators ^{[1] [4]}.

4. Conflicting or competing perspectives in the coverage

News outlets presented competing emphases: Reuters and the AP-focused pieces emphasised the unsubstantiated nature of Trump’s claim and the lack of an established motive from police ^{[1] [6]}. Opinion and cultural pieces (Guardian, Vulture) amplified grief and tributes to Reiner while condemning attempts to politicize the deaths; conservative outlets and commentators published defenses or different framings of the president’s remarks ^{[7] [8] [9]}. Sources explicitly note the political dispute is occurring while police investigations proceed ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Where reporting is limited or silent — and why that matters

Police releases and detailed forensic or account-forensics disclosures are either limited or absent in these stories; when outlets say motive has not been ascribed, that is a factual gap cited in several reports ^{[1] [4]}. Because available reporting does not mention any social-account compromise or Reiner comments about editing, any claim that his account was hacked or that he explained deletions is unsupported by these sources and should be treated as unconfirmed (available sources do not mention account compromise or Reiner explaining edits/deletions) ^{[1] [2]}.

6. How this gap creates fertile ground for mis- and disinformation

High-profile violence plus rapid political commentary creates a vacuum that bad actors can exploit: if outlets don’t report technical details (who posted what, whether posts were edited), readers can be tempted to assume nefarious activity like hacking. Several pieces explicitly call out the rush to politicize a private tragedy, underscoring how quickly narratives can form in the absence of confirmed facts ^{[4] [6]}.

7. Takeaway and what to watch next

Follow official LAPD statements and platform disclosures for any confirmation about account activity; the current corpus of reporting ties the controversy to Trump’s Truth Social post and reactions, not to any statement by Rob Reiner about editing or to any evidence of his accounts being compromised ^{[3] [1]}. Absent such reporting, treat claims about account compromise or deleted posts as unverified until a named, credible source (police, platform log-release, or Reiner family representative) is cited ^{[2] [1]}.