Viral Video of Kirk Shooting Highlights Shift in Media Gatekeeping Responsibilities

They were careful with the explicit imagery — as usual. But did it make any difference?

Traditional news channels were careful during their afternoon reports on Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Wednesday, choosing not to display the exact moment he was shot. Instead, they shared footage of Kirk throwing a hat to the crowd just before the incident and the chaos among spectators immediately afterward.

In reality, this caution had minimal effect. Gruesome footage of the shooting appeared online almost immediately, captured from various perspectives and available in both slow-motion and real time. The videos attracted millions of views.

Clips were readily accessible on platforms like X, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and even Truth Social, where then-President Donald Trump released an official announcement regarding the death of the conservative activist. This situation highlights how the traditional “gatekeeping” role of media outlets has evolved in the age of social media.

Kirk was fatally shot during an event attended by hundreds at a Utah college campus. Many in the audience recorded the incident on their phones, aware of how to quickly share video footage of the unfolding news.

On X, one video directly shows Kirk being hit, his body jerking back and blood pouring from a wound. Another clip loops the moment of impact in slow motion, stopping just before any blood appears. A different angle captures audio seemingly indicating Kirk was discussing gun violence as he was shot.

For over 150 years, traditional media groups, including newspapers and TV networks, have been used to “gatekeeping” by choosing how to present explicit content. They make editorial choices about violent incidents to determine what images and words to broadcast to their audience. However, in today’s fragmented social media environment, where smartphones enable instant video uploads, decisions by established media have less influence than before.

Images spread across the country

Across the country in Ithaca, New York, college professor Sarah Kreps’ teenage sons texted her about Kirk’s assassination shortly after school was dismissed and they could access their phones.

No, she told them. He was shot, but there were no reports that he had died. Her son answered: Have you seen the video? There’s no way he could have survived that.

The videos were posted and reposted at lightning speed. One person on X urged “stop the violence” but then included a clip of the shooting. Several people took to social media to plead for people not to spread the images. “For the love of God and Charlie’s family,” read one message, “just stop.”

YouTube said it was removing “some graphic content” related to the event if it doesn’t provide sufficient context, and restricting videos so they could not be seen by users under age 18 or those who are not signed in, the company said.

“Our hearts are with Charlie Kirk’s family following his tragic death,” YouTube said. “We are closely monitoring our platform and prominently elevating news content on the homepage, in search and in recommendations to help people stay informed.”

Meta’s rules don’t prohibit posting videos like Kirk’s shooting, but warning labels are applied and they are not shown to users who say they are under 18. The parent company of Instagram, Facebook and Threads referred a reporter to the company’s policies on violent and graphic content, which they indicated would apply in this case, but had no further comment. An X representative did not immediately return a request for comment.

It’s an issue social media companies have dealt with before, in equally gruesome circumstances. Facebook was forced to contend with people wanting to livestream violence with a mass shooting in New Zealand in 2019, said Cornell University’s Kreps, author of the forthcoming book, “Harnessing Disruption: Building the Tech Future Without Breaking Society.”

Getting to the other side

Some images seeped out into more traditional media. TMZ posted a video of Kirk in which a shot and a voice saying, “Oh, my God,” can be heard, but Kirk’s upper body was blurred out. A similar video with a blurred image of Kirk was posted on the New York Post’s website.

In such an atmosphere, the care shown by most traditional news outlets may seem quaint or old-fashioned. But news industry leaders are acutely aware of protecting people from graphic images when they are not expecting it; happening upon them is a little harder online, where many people have to search for and click on an image if they want to see it — if it hasn’t already been sent to you or your group chat.

There can also be an important message sent by news outlets being cautious in what they show, Kreps said. “The traditional media can amplify and validate behavior,” she said. “It can be a signal for how things should be stigmatized, rather than validated or normalized.”

But on the day of the shooting in a politically polarized country, the easy availability of shocking images ran the risk of making society’s wound even more painful.

“I don’t see how many signs of how we get — as a people, as a nation — to the other side of this,” said CNN’s David Chalian. “I think we are broken, and potentially beyond repair.”

___

AP correspondent Barbara Ortutay in San Francisco contributed to this report. David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social.