On August 22, 2025, a shocking act of violence unfolded on a Charlotte, North Carolina, train: Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, was stabbed to death by a black male as she returned from work. The incident, captured on CCTV, quickly found its way online, where it ignited a firestorm among conservative commentators and sparked a contentious debate about media coverage, public trauma, and the role of social media in amplifying tragedy.
Just weeks later, another moment of horror was broadcast across the internet: a graphic video showing 31-year-old conservative activist Charlie Kirk being shot while hosting a student event at Utah Valley University. The footage, which showed Kirk’s neck gushing blood, went viral on social media platforms—especially X—autoplaying for hours before moderators intervened. As millions inadvertently witnessed these brutal scenes, questions swirled about why certain crimes become national flashpoints, how constant exposure to violence affects society, and whether social media is fueling new cycles of outrage and trauma.
According to Quillette, the murder of Zarutska became a particular rallying point for many on the political Right, prompting accusations of selective outrage and media bias. CNN’s Abby Phillip, discussing the case on September 2, 2025, remarked, “People are murdered every single day in every city in America, and every single one of those murders is terrible and a tragedy. But this particular one, I’m trying to understand why this has become such a flashpoint on the Right.” Her comments reflected a broader confusion—and, for some, frustration—over the divergent responses to violent crime depending on the identities of those involved.
This divergence is not new. As Quillette notes, the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Michael Brown at the hands of police became international causes, their faces appearing on murals from Berlin to Nairobi. By contrast, white victims of police violence, such as Tony Timpa and Daniel Shaver, remain largely unknown to the broader public. The difference, analysts argue, is not in the brutality of the incidents, but in the racial frame through which they are reported and discussed in the media.
Supporting this view, a 2023 report by the Manhattan Institute found that “the median unarmed black victim of a fatal police shooting receives nearly 21 times more news articles than the median white victim, an imbalance that likely distorts public perceptions of police violence.” Further, a 2022 analysis by the Washington Free Beacon showed that after May 2020, newspapers mentioned the race of white perpetrators 28% of the time and black perpetrators only 4% of the time—a ratio of seven to one. These statistics, cited in Quillette, suggest that media coverage follows what some call an "identitarian script," amplifying certain tragedies while minimizing others, often along racial lines.
The viral spread of violent content is not limited to traditional media. The internet, and social media in particular, have dramatically altered how the public encounters and processes real-life horror. As The Hollywood Reporter observed in its September 12, 2025, coverage, the footage of Kirk’s shooting was not only widely disseminated but also thrust upon countless users who had no intention of seeing it. The same was true for the moments before and after Zarutska’s murder, which circulated widely even though the stabbing itself was not broadcast.
This phenomenon—what one might call the "democratization of trauma"—is relatively new. For decades, editors exercised discretion over disturbing content, often withholding the most graphic images from public view. The Zapruder film of JFK’s assassination, for example, was largely unavailable to the general public for years. But the rise of social media has stripped away many of these editorial guardrails, leaving users exposed to a torrent of graphic imagery with little warning or control.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox minced no words in his assessment, declaring that the spread of the Kirk video “is not good to consume … social media is a cancer on our society.” His comments echo a growing chorus of concern about the psychological effects of repeated exposure to real-life violence online.
Professor Roxane Cohen Silver, whose research is cited by The Hollywood Reporter, has studied the mental health impact of watching graphic real-world violence. Her findings are sobering: “While the impact of viewing a single graphic video is small, it can measurably have a negative effect on mental health for literally years. Such images get permanently stored in your long-term memory and are linked to being more fearful and anxious.” She adds that, contrary to early assumptions, repeated exposure does not lead to desensitization. “Instead, any exposure is linked to being more sensitive and seeking out the next set of graphic images. It’s a very cyclical process. We see increased distress and anxiety over time, hyper-vigilance over time and actually found cardiovascular problems.”
Silver’s research also differentiates between real and fictional violence: humans don’t have the same trauma response when they know footage isn’t real. The effect is compounded by social media’s algorithms, which often push users toward more of the same disturbing content after initial exposure.
Yet there is a counterargument. As The Hollywood Reporter points out, footage of monstrous acts—such as World War II concentration camps or George Floyd’s death—has sometimes been crucial in sparking social change and fostering empathy. The video of Floyd’s murder, for instance, helped launch a global movement for racial justice and policing reform. But the same outrage can also lead to unintended consequences: riots, policy overreactions, and even further violence. Silver notes, “There can be both a positive for society and negative for the individual. For the individual, we have found there is no psychological benefit to exposure to graphic or gruesome images.”
Dr. Sarah M. Coyne, a media researcher, warns that politicizing these videos risks spinning public response into dangerous directions. “It’s horrific and I worry that it will just begat more violence,” she says. “I hope the people who saw that have empathy for the individual and for his family and have the message that violence is not okay.”
In the wake of these incidents, some experts and leaders have called for stronger content moderation on social media. However, as The Hollywood Reporter notes, moderation efforts can take a toll on the mental health of the moderators themselves. One former Meta staffer told Euronews, “This kind of content scars you for life.” The potential for artificial intelligence to assist in moderation is being explored, but the effectiveness and ethical implications remain uncertain.
The debate over the viral spread of violence, the framing of victims and perpetrators, and the psychological toll of constant exposure is far from settled. What is clear, though, is that the lines between public interest, empathy, and trauma are increasingly blurred in the digital age. As society grapples with these challenges, the question remains: how do we balance the need to bear witness with the imperative to protect our collective mental health?
For now, the tragedies of Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk stand as stark reminders of the power—and peril—of seeing too much, too soon, and too often.
