On September 10, 2025, political activist—not politician—Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at a collegiate event in Utah. On that same day, a 16 year-old walked into Evergreen High School in Evergreen, Colorado and fired off 20 rounds of bullets at teachers and students, alike. Yet the shooting in Colorado didn’t get nearly as much coverage as Charlie Kirk’s, even though a student was shot and killed. Why should a man who said he “think[s] it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights,” and “[…] can’t stand the word empathy,” receive it when he died for exactly what he stood for?
Charlie Kirk, infamously known for his distinctly right-wing political opinions, did not deserve to be shot and killed. I believe that nobody deserves to be. But so many creators and influencers online are revealing their MAGA views after showing compassion towards Charlie Kirk, justifying it by saying “he had kids” or “he had a wife.” So many others with kids and wives are murdered, including families in places like Gaza, that, when mentioned, creators online are suddenly silent toward. The Gaza Governorate has now reached the highest degree of famine on Integrated Food Security Phase Classification’s food insecurity scale: but how many people actually knew about that? Children are eating sand out of desperation. No child should ever have to beg for food; that is truly beyond humanity. How many social media influencers did you hear speaking out about it? I, for one, did not find out about Gaza’s active level of famine until last week. When the media amplifies the death of one public figure above the suffering of millions elsewhere, it reflects a kind of moral hierarchy in storytelling.
Another reason for this disproportionate coverage is the media’s profit-driven morals. Modern news outlets compete for clicks, views, and engagement—metrics that translate into advertising revenue. The death of a well-known public figure draws intense emotional reactions globally. As a result, networks devote hours of airtime to tributes, speculation, and public reactions. Meanwhile, stories like escalating conflicts in Africa, humanitarian crises in the Middle East, or the ongoing effects of climate change often receive minimal coverage. This creates an illusion of importance where audiences perceive the most frequently discussed stories as the most significant, regardless of their real-world impact.
Ultimately, the overemphasis on the death of Charlie Kirk, while real global crises are ignored, highlights a dangerous flaw in media ethics and overall values. Journalism and broadcasting was meant to inform citizens and hold power accountable, not to chase the next viral or trending story. When emotional spectacle replaces real-world reporting, society loses the ability to see beyond its own borders. For a more informed and compassionate world, both journalists and audiences must demand coverage that reflects significance, not popularity. The longer we allow the media to leave crucial real-world topics unaddressed, the more we are allowing our government to shield us from the stories that truly matter.