成人X站

After the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president, people converged online to make sense of available information. The aftermath of the shooting was chaotic as officials, rally attendees and online audiences tried to make sense of a dynamic, ever-changing flow of information.

examined how traditional and social media reacted in the immediate aftermath.

Its findings determined initial media reports contained hedgy language about “popping noises” that were soon updated to shots had indeed been fired. News spread that three audience members had been hit by gunfire, which resulted in one fatality.

Photos circulated of a suspected shooter who lay dead on a rooftop a few hundred feet away. As the facts crystallized, news consumers had to wade through the changing and sometimes conflicting information.

In the piece published by the CIP:

Diverging along ideological lines, pro-Trump rhetoric attempted to assign blame for the shooting, anchoring on an assumption that the perpetrator was a Democrat motivated by political rhetoric acutely critical of Trump. Meanwhile, among anti-Trump commentators, a sense of skepticism spread, with many theorizing that the event may have been ‘staged’ by the Trump campaign for political gain.

What is ‘collective sensemaking?’

During crisis events like Saturday’s shooting, the CIP report’s researchers said we often see groups of people come together to make sense of what is happening amid intense anxiety and informational ambiguity. This dynamic process, called “collective sensemaking,” is increasingly happening online.

Speculation of shooter鈥檚 identity and motives

The analysis revealed that, in the wake of the assassination attempt, rumors about the shooter’s identity began to spread within 5 minutes of the shooting on X and soon echoed across other platforms.

In the first stage, prior to the shooter’s identity being officially released, public channels prematurely . Following this initial false identification, an聽claiming to be the shooter, leading to more confusion. In subsequent聽, the self-identified shooter was determined to be an internet troll (with an antisemitic handle) who later claimed he posted the video as a joke.

Biden and Trump accuse each other of weakening America’s foreign policy: Here are the facts

Social platforms featured accusations and insinuations about the shooter’s potential connections to the Democratic party, presenting reports that he previously 聽through the ActBlue donation platform.

Framing competitions that attempt to lay “blame” on one political party or another for motivating a shooter are not uncommon, researchers said.

A spectrum of ‘political frames’

In the first days after the assassination attempt, researchers found three core “political frames” emerged. On the anti-Trump extreme, there was an early frame that the event was staged for Trump’s political gain. Another general frame emerged criticizing and questioning the Secret Service. On the pro-Trump extreme, a frame emerged that the assassination attempt had been an “inside job.” Both extremes reflect more conspiratorial positions.

In the early aftermath, a theory took hold on TikTok, X and Bluesky that the assassination attempt was Commentators insinuated the event was set up to portray him as a hero with聽 the instantly iconic photo of him with blood on his ear and his fist in the air. Others claimed the crowd was not panicking enough.

Theories derived from this frame peaked in the first two hours after the shooting but died down shortly thereafter, as reputable news outlets had reported this as a legitimate assassination attempt and the shooter had been identified. Interestingly, though the “staging” frame was prominent this time within communities on the political left, it resonates with conspiratorial frames that are repeatedly used by right-wing audiences to process crisis events to facilitate a political or economic victory.

UW: Secret Service critics in Trump shooting

On social and mainstream media, many across the political spectrum,聽, questioned why the Secret Service had failed to protect a presidential candidate. Social media commentary was particularly focused on the failure to secure the rooftop where the shooter had carried out the crime. News outlets of the crowd urging law enforcement to address the armed man on the roof during the rally. Reflecting a more politically coded frame, some compared videos of the Secret Service’s 聽to the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan,聽reaction to shots at Trump was much slower.

Many pro-Trump influencers suggested Trump had been denied additional protection聽鈥斅爏ometimes directly or indirectly blaming it on political motivations. Some聽 the Secret Service had denied Trump’s additional security requests, which the 听鈥斅烬听聽has denied. This narrative was further fueled by聽 calling for the removal of Trump’s Secret Service protection if he were convicted.

‘Of all the places’: Deep red Butler, Pennsylvania, grapples with Trump assassination attempt

Some critiques of the Secret Service took on more conspiratorial framing. In retweeting a popular pro-Trump influencer,聽 the mistake was either “incompetence” or “deliberate” (a framing).

While the “staged” assassination attempt, Secret Service failures, and “inside job” rumors were prominent on other platforms, notably X, they remained relatively low level within the sample of data examined on Telegram 鈥� which has often hosted that kind of conspiratorial framing in the past.

Right-wing critiques of mainstream media

The frame of mainstream media opposition is so strong among many Trump supporters that some 聽at the press box after the shooting.

As crises unfold, media institutions are subject to some of the same collective sensemaking dynamics as the rest of the public.

The legacy media is a pure propaganda machine. 饾晱 is the voice of the people.

鈥� Elon Musk (@elonmusk)

Beyond the criticism of initial reporting, social media users blamed the mainstream media for motivating the attack, suggesting previous negative coverage about Trump had stoked virulent anti-Trump sentiments amongst the American public.

These rumors and criticisms reveal some of the challenges faced by professional journalists grappling with both legitimate criticism and politically-driven villainization of their work: they are criticized for both moving too slowly and expressing uncertainty when they report quickly, also vilified for making mistakes and having to correct themselves, and criticized (often by actors on both sides of the political spectrum) for being biased.

Generative AI makes information (true or false) disseminate more quickly

The CIP’s findings said generative AI may be fueling the faster generation of cultural and commercial content for creators. The mass amount of sharing and creating may contribute to internet trends and a shared “vibe,” or affective sentiment, within an app.

Additionally, many users increasingly leverage AI to quickly output listings for products they will sell with the attention they receive by jumping on the trending event. Capitalizing on crisis events is not new, but what is novel is the near instantaneous ability to commemorate it by quickly selling merchandise () with product images or listings generated by AI. Researchers said they can anticipate this phenomenon much more during this and future crises.

Homeland Security: Inspector General investigates Secret Service handling of security at Trump rally

Commemorative merchandise contributes to mobilizing and demonstrating support for Trump in this moment. Product listings relating to this event vary from shirts to phone cases, with several products related to this event appearing on in-app shops like TikTok Shop and Facebook Marketplace,聽as well as the platform Etsy.

Along with in-app marketplaces, there are digital ads being run on several platforms like X to advertise a wide range of products including collectible聽聽and digital currencies with . Some聽of these聽聽and the public should be mindful of the incentives of crisis entrepreneurs.

According to the CIP, slowing down and paying attention to which frames we are using, which evidence we focus on and how we interpret that evidence may help us in navigating complex digital spaces.

Center for an Informed Public contributors to this report: Danielle Lee Tomson, Kate Starbird, Nina Lutz, Stephen Prochaska, Ashlyn B. Aske, Melinda McClure Haughey, Joseph S. Schafer, Zarine Kharazian, Adiza Awwal, and Michael Grass. (Names are listed in the order they appeared in the report.)

Bill Kaczaraba is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here. Follow Bill on X, formerly known as Twitter, and email him here.听

More MyNorthwest politics

• Seattle council votes to crack down on street racing: Adds fines, classifies as reckless driving
• Guilty: U.S. Senator Bob Menendez convicted on all counts
• New poll: Ferguson leads Reichert by single digits