Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist, this week was shot at a public event hosted on a state college campus in Utah. This callous act reverberated throughout the country. The arrest escalated into a violent encounter while a crowd of hundreds looked on. Hundreds of them chronicled the minutes before and after the shooting as it played out on their smartphones. Graphic footage quickly goes viral on all of these social media platforms. This explosive advance prompts critical questions regarding the evolving role of media gatekeepers in contemporary society.
The shooting occurred in the middle of a politically charged event, exacerbating the already tense and polarized climate in the United States. Videos showing the moment of impact went viral on social media platforms, including X. Another gruesome video revealed Kirk’s body jerking back as blood sprayed out from his gunshot wound. A different video on the same platform showed the impact slowed way down. It cut out a moment before blood showed up on screen, making it shocking for viewers and helping to propel the video’s viral success.
Legacy media outlets chose an overall cautious framing and tone for their reporting. With apologies, networks largely avoided airing that graphic moment of the shooting. In a similar format, they showed previous best moments from the conference. For example, they posted a video of Kirk throwing a hat to his crowd right before the mass shooting occurred. They even caught the environment chaos that followed, with frantic crowds of people running in the opposite direction from the explosion site.
The availability of shocking images and videos related to Kirk’s shooting has ignited a conversation regarding the responsibilities of media platforms. Sarah Kreps, a noted expert on media influence, emphasized that “the traditional media can amplify and validate behavior.” It also begs the question of what effect such content has on our society’s view and response to real-life violence.
The New York Post issued a heavily pixelated photo of Kirk immediately after the shooting. At the same time, millions of viewers flocked to various platforms to consume video content connected to the incident. YouTube expressed its condolences in a statement following the incident: “Our hearts are with Charlie Kirk’s family following his tragic death.” This response indicates an awareness of the platform’s role in hosting and spreading sensitive content.
Now that that shocking footage is going viral, some commentators on social media are calling attention to the very real risk it poses to society. David Chalian remarked, “I don’t see how many signs of how we get — as a people, as a nation — to the other side of this.” The juxtaposition between traditional media’s cautious reporting and the unfiltered nature of social media underscores a growing divide in how news is consumed and shared.
The tragedy is all too familiar in historical cases where social media has become a central part of advertising violence to the world. The backlash that Facebook encountered in 2019, following the mass shooting livestreamed in New Zealand, pales in comparison. During that attack, people attempted to livestream acts of violence. The ethical complexities content moderation poses are more relevant now than ever in the wake of these tragedies.
The impact of Kirk’s shooting goes far beyond the 24-hour news cycle. The ability to rapidly circulate disturbing imagery is not only antithetical to a productive public discourse, but threatens our collective mental health. As with architecture, visual storytelling has recently experienced a sea change. Where traditional news outlets uphold the ideals of careful, accountable journalism, social media rewards urgency and viral controversy.
