Following the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Wednesday, graphic videos of his death began making the rounds. Almost all professional news organizations declined to publicize these videos. But footage of Kirk gushing blood after being shot in the neck quickly became easily accessible on social media. This led to questions across the political spectrum about why such videos circulated so rapidly and whether social media platforms have an obligation to censor them.
News organizations’ roles have changed Traditional media outlets were “careful with the explicit imagery — as usual,” said The Associated Press. But in “practical terms, though, it mattered little.” Videos of the shooting from multiple angles were widely disseminated on YouTube, X, Instagram and Truth Social. This “illustrated how the ‘gatekeeping’ role of news organizations has changed in the era of social media.”
These organizations have become accustomed to “making editorial decisions around violent events to decide what images and words appear on their platforms,” said the AP. But in the “fragmented era of social media, smartphones and instant video uploads, editorial decisions by legacy media are less impactful than ever.”
Journalists “draw lines for a reason. We know how trauma seeps in through a screen,” said the Poynter Institute. While social media “promises unfiltered access but without guarantees of truth and without protection from harm.”
‘Assumed risk' While some have pushed for more censorship, seeing “gruesome, horrific imagery has, unfortunately, become an assumed risk when logging onto social media,” said USA Today. The experience has, for some, become increasingly common amid videos of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza in recent years. If you “do choose to bear witness, take care to be sure you are not growing numb to what you see.”
And even with some instances of social media companies trying to block the footage, it was “inevitable that videos showing the moment Kirk was shot would spread widely,” said The New York Times. But not everyone thinks the videos should be removed.
“Freedom of speech includes content we don't like or hate,” Lily Tang Williams, a GOP congressional candidate for New Hampshire, said on X. It “hurts to watch the video, but we must defend free speech as the foundation of our republic, no matter how horrible it is.” |