It is a well-known fact that the most effective way to capture someone’s attention is to evoke an emotional response. This is no different in the media when trying to get clicks and views. By simply making audience members furious, media stories are able to get the viewership they need in order to make an exponential amount of revenue. Whatever gets them rich.
This pattern of thinking is consistently seen in America’s media, especially when looking at how a culture of selective outrage has resulted in and distorted our understanding of violence in our country. Evoking outrage and causing polarization is rewarded by algorithms with high ratings. And thus, the feedback loop continues. Viewers only see what aligns with their interests or what generates shock value.
Sadly, this dynamic is not new. For years, the algorithm has proven time and time again how some tragedies become national obsessions while others fade almost immediately from the public eye. The mass shootings at Sandy Hook and Parkland — both of which are suburban or predominantly white schools — dominated headlines for weeks. However, equally deadly shootings in cities like Chicago or St. Louis often pass with a fraction of the coverage. The media gravitates towards stories from suburban areas or whose victims are predominantly white because they’re the stories that their core audience can identify with. But in doing so, they create a hierarchy of whose suffering “matters” enough to be seen.
This happened a few days ago, as well with the death of Charlie Kirk. Kirk was a political activist who co-founded the organization Turning Point in 2012 and hosted The Charlie Kirk Show. On Sept. 10, Kirk was holding a “Prove me Wrong” debate at Utah Valley University when he was killed. His death received national attention because he was famous, politically polarizing and part of a conservative movement. His memorial received wall-to-wall coverage, his death sparked national debates, and even censorship controversies unfolded on a national scale. Part of the reason for the extensive media attention is that many audience members who mourned could recognize themselves in him — as a white, male political figure — in ways they might not with other victims of violence.
On that same day, there were other school shootings. At Evergreen High School, Desmond Holly brought a gun to school and critically wounded two classmates before fatally shooting himself. Under different circumstances, Evergreen might have become one of those national stories the media fixates on like Parkland or Sandy Hook. But because it happened on the same day as Kirk’s assassination, Evergreen barely registered outside a handful of articles. Kirk’s death was seen with front-page headlines, days of continuous updates, op-eds, political debates and TV panels. Meanwhile, Evergreen was quickly dropped from the cycle. The disparity reveals how timing and symbolism shape coverage — when a politically famous figure is killed, even tragedies that normally would command national attention are eclipsed.
This difference in coverage has real consequences, though. Without seeing the full scope of what is occurring, the public is led to believe that gun violence is isolated rather than systemic. This influences policymakers who respond to pressure from these headlines and the voters who are unable to see past them, causing the events in headlines to be the ones that shape legislation. Thus, a distorted cycle results where solutions are debated only in the context of high-profile cases while the broader epidemic of shootings in schools and communities remains unaddressed.
What’s more is that Kirk’s assassination continues to receive attention due to several right-wing influencers with huge social media followings alleging that the shooting is related to transgender activism and was funded by left-wing activists — claims that remain unfounded. Yet, the outrage these narratives generated kept the story trending for weeks. This is the outrage economy at work: the more polarizing the claim, the more clicks it earns and the longer the spotlight stays fixed on Kirk. Meanwhile, tragedies like Evergreen fade because they lack that same culture-war fuel, even though their victims represent the everyday reality of gun violence in America.
When headlines focus on politically symbolic deaths while pushing aside other tragedies that do not fit the outrage formula, our national understanding of gun violence becomes dangerously incomplete. We mourn the famous while ignoring the everyday. We debate censorship and conspiracies while forgetting the victims whose names never trend.
If America wants to take gun violence seriously, we need a shift in how stories are told. Coverage must prioritize context and truth over clicks and polarization. Equal weight must be given to stories that reflect the scope of the crisis, not just the ones that spark the loudest reaction.
Without change, this problem will only grow worse. As Americans, we have a duty to stay well-informed about the many issues concerning our country instead of simply acknowledging the headlines. By continuously seeking out diverse news sources, talking about current events and sharing them on social media, we can spark conversations that draw attention to the bigger issues. Until then, the culture of selective outrage will continue to warp our understanding of violence, leaving us unprepared to address the very epidemic destroying lives every day.
“It is a well-known fact that the most effective way to capture someone’s attention is to evoke an emotional response. This is no different in the media when trying to get clicks and views.”
This is a rich take coming from the very same columnist who wrote that the Holocaust was caused by capitalism.