Great Ideas:
Issues & Research

Abstract

       This study examines how political discourse surrounding the July 2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump unfolded on TikTok, comparing content between legacy media outlets and independent users. Using a qualitative content analysis, videos from relevant hashtags and legacy media accounts were collected and coded for tone, storytelling strategy, and engagement. Legacy media focused on factual reporting, political reactions, and public safety, while user-generated videos ranged from informative to speculative, humorous, or conspiratorial. Right-leaning outlets emphasized Trump’s resilience and symbolism, while centrist and left-leaning sources addressed misinformation and systemic concerns. Despite being less accurate, user videos often garnered significantly more engagement, highlighting the TikTok algorithm’s tendency to favor emotionally charged content. These results demonstrate how traditional journalism is being challenged by decentralized, personality driven media, particularly with younger audiences who are increasingly relying on social platforms for political information. The findings raise important concerns about misinformation and confirmation bias and the role they have in shaping public opinion, reinforcing the need for greater media literacy and platform accountability in today’s fragmented media landscape.

​

Introduction

       The rise of social media has transformed the consumption of media and dissemination of information. The social media platform TikTok specifically has taken off, giving users a place to learn, grow platforms, and find communities. With this new age of TikTok, anyone with access to a cellular device is able to gain a substantial following and easily develop a platform. Simultaneously, cable television has lost its popularity, and new generations have transferred over to streaming services. This has diluted the power of broadcast television, and therefore mainstream news outlets. The fall-out of cable television alongside the rise of TikTok has changed how Americans consume news media.

       With the shift from cable to mobile media consumption, the majority of US citizens have information at their fingertips. Not only are people getting their news and information from streaming platforms with limited live television, but also from social media that contain unsourced information from people with unknown, unverified credibility. The independent perspectives of younger generations posted online is refreshing, and their causal approaches through TikTok establish trust in their audiences. However, there are no editors and bosses looking over their online journalism, leaving a large margin of error. This means there is a large volume of media output with more diverse voices, however, there aren’t as many credible perspectives being heard. A misinformation researcher at the University of Pittsburg says, “legacy news media have a lot to learn from news influencers but news influencers also have a lot to learn from legacy news media,” according to the Wall Street Journal. 

​

Literature Review
       Social media has become an agenda setter for not only public debate, but government level debate as well. Agenda-setting theory is the idea that media shapes what the public considers a priority by giving certain issues more coverage than others (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). The traditional form of agenda-setting is executed by legacy media. However, the rise of social media has disrupted the traditional dynamic, allowing users to create conversation in a decentralized, unregulated way, where trending topics often dictate the political discourse. Legacy media maintains its integrity through the need for fact-checking and editorial oversight, but its output doesn’t attract the same engagement as social media influencers (SMIs). According to a study done on the impact of social media within a local level Norwegian election (Steinveg and Bjorna, 2023), the reliance on social media to shape political priorities is only increasing. Through interviews, the researchers found that politicians believe social media helps them converse directly with the public, bypassing traditional media outlet regulations. Politicians who are active on X (Twitter) tend to be less present in traditional media (Severin-Nielsen, 2023). Additionally, the content politicians deliberate on X and television advertisements have a small overlap, furthering the disconnect between those intaking information from social media and television. Together, these studies support the increasing presence of politics on social media, its capability of agenda setting, and how this has diversified media output.
       Given the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, anyone from the general public is free to share their opinion online. With this, there is a common theme of public figures speaking on, and therefore influencing, political debates. These public figures could be celebrities (singers, actors, models, etc.), social media influencers (SMIs/Creators, previously-ordinary people who gained a following on a social media platform), or sport celebrities (Gonzales et al. 2023). Even though they possess substantial followings on social media, it does not necessarily deem them credible to educate digital audiences on politics. While politicians use social media as a priority setter and facilitator for unfiltered debate, public figures are on the other end, fueling these conversations.
       The way in which political content is communicated is much less formal online, and there are distinctions among types of public figures in how they present the political material. Influencers tend to use personal anecdotes to tap into the emotions of their audience, while celebrities use their social capital as an amplifier to more formal politics (Gonzales et al., 2023). There are minor distinctions between athletes and SMIs pertaining to the political content posted, but they do tend to incorporate lifestyle in their narratives, more so than celebrities (Gonzales et al., 2023). These presentation styles highlight the challenges of balancing entertainment with accuracy and engagement. 
       Once this information is published on TikTok by creators, it is readily available for anyone to access. While viewing, users have the option to stay engaged or continue on scrolling to new videos. However, the more one interacts with a video, the more the algorithm will feed you similar content (Grandinetti & Bruinsma, 2023). This feature allows users to stay engaged by seeing continuous content they are interested in, but also is dangerous in promoting confirmation biases. Confirmation bias, also known as selective exposure, is defined by the tendency to gravitate toward opinions consistent with one’s attitude toward a problem (Westerwick et al., 2020). Pertaining to political content, users are more likely to engage in confirmation bias when the issue is deemed more important to the viewer (Westerwick et al., 2020). Individuals with higher levels of news literacy are more likely to fact-check and either move on or share the content. Those of lower news literacy are more likely to believe what they hear and share, reinforcing confirmation bias (Vraga and Tully, 2019). Those who share the post and aren’t cautious enough to investigate are likely to see more videos supporting the information. 
       In the 2016 US presidential election, these confirmation biases were naively overlooked. Fake news stories were trafficked more than accurate ones on Facebook, suggesting social media played a big role in false voter perceptions and opinions (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017). The findings of Del Vicario et al. (2016) corroborate that misinformation spreads substantially faster than factual news.  In response to the criticism, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook introduced new fact-checking policies nearing the 2020 U.S. presidential election. TikTok claims to have also put policies in place, however research suggests political content on the platform remains heavily unregulated (Grandinetti & Bruinsma, 2023). 
       A lack of credibility is not the only thing that sets apart social media news and legacy media news, it is also the presentation of the narratives. Zulli et al. (2024) found that satirical videos performed better than formally toned videos on the same political topic. This raises concern to how information can be miscommunicated or oversimplified, and also may teach younger generations to take politics less seriously. Additionally, TikTok’s algorithm favors content that induces immediate or quick reactions, amplifying emotionally resonant videos regardless of accuracy or relevance (Grandinetti & Bruinsma, 2023). This raises the question of whether engagement metrics should be prioritizing engagement over pure substance, and ultimately where truth and transparency come into play.
       Despite the concerns over misinformation, social media has increased public engagement with political content, particularly among young voters. Research suggests younger users are more likely to consume news via social media than traditional outlets, with platforms like TikTok serving as a primary source of information (Zulli et al. 2024). Young individuals getting involved with politics is encouraging, however, it exposes uneducated youth to confirmation bias. 
       The dispersion of political information is being heavily influenced by public figures and users on social media, perpetuated by a lack of news literacy. The way in which algorithms push misinformation is misleading and harmful to the integrity of American society and democracy. This content analysis will analyze the nature in which political content was spoken about by users and traditional media on TikTok after Donald Trump’s assassination attempt, and how that compares to overall engagement with the posts. Additionally, I will look at the tone and style of the communication types and decipher where the two types of users differ.

​

RQ1: How do users speak about politics on TikTok? In what tone do they talk? Is the information accurate? How often do they post about politics?

RQ2: How do legacy media networks speak about politics on TikTok? How often do they post content? How does their content perform in comparison to user media?

​

Methods
       This study employs a qualitative content analysis (with some quantitative aspects) to examine discourse surrounding the 2024 U.S. presidential election on TikTok, with a focus on content related to the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. The analysis centers on videos posted between July 13 and July 19, 2024, a period marked by Donald Trump’s assassination attempt and the Republican National Convention (RNC).
       The methodology follows an approach developed by Macnaughton and Trott (2024), based on Altheide (1996), which emphasizes the extraction of “meaning, emphasis, and themes” within messages, as well as interactions among users to understand content as part of broader, evolving conversations. A new TikTok account was created to avoid bias from pre-existing personal user data and algorithms. I set the birth date to January 1, 2001 as this would make me 24 - the average age of a TikTok user in 2025 according to Statista. 
       Analysis was conducted through targeted hashtag searches related to the event. Videos were scraped from both #trumpassassination and #thomascrooks and saved in folders. Videos over 3 minutes were not collected due to time constraints. Videos posted by legacy media that were under these hashtags were also excluded to avoid cross examination and focus on the idea of user generated content versus legacy media. Each video was evaluated for its core message, caption content, and the tone conveyed.
       To examine legacy media representation, TikTok accounts were selected from this media bias chart that categorized outlets as left, left-leaning, centrist, right-leaning, or right. Left and left-leaning were combined as a category as well as right and right-leaning. The nine outlets were randomly selected from each category:

Right leaning: Fox News, The Daily Wire, The Wall Street Journal

Centrist: Reuters, NewsNation, Newsweek

Left leaning: Yahoo News, The Washington Post, AP News

       Each video was evaluated based on its tone, audience engagement, style, and storytelling strategies. Tone analysis included attention to descriptive language, background music, and vocal delivery. Audience engagement was measured through like and comment metrics. Style was defined by either animated infographic, recording, oral speech, meme, interview, or advertisement. Storytelling strategies were categorized as humor, call to action, conspiracy, or educational; videos composed entirely of opinion were labeled as conspiracy rather than educational. 
       This analysis aims to uncover the political dynamics of TikTok discourse, examining how storytelling strategies differ between independent users and legacy media with their portrayals of Donald Trump’s assassination attempt in light of the 2024 election.

​

Results - User Media
       TikTok content regarding the assassination attempt exhibited a diverse range of sentiments and tones, reflecting the unregulated nature of information on social media. Reporting on the RNC also incorporated these elements. They covered Trump's appearance with the bandage, reported on speeches where the assassination attempt was discussed, and documented the solidarity displayed by attendees, such as the ear bandages and merchandise. The assassination quickly became a central theme of the RNC, shaping the tone and messaging of the convention as reported by various users.

The sources demonstrate themes including:

• Knowledge Reporting: Many users shared clips of news broadcasts or personal recordings of the event, aiming to inform others about what happened.

• Opinion and Reaction: Users shared their personal reactions, expressing shock, concern, or relief that Trump was okay, and condemning the violence.

• Conspiracy and Speculation: A significant portion of user-generated content involved speculation and promotion of conspiracy theories, such as the idea that the assassination attempt was staged. Videos used animated infographics to speculate on hypothetical outcomes or the shooter's actions, sometimes labeling the shooter inaccurately. Some speculated about Secret Service involvement.

• Comedy and Meme: The event was also the subject of dark humor and memes, using unrelated videos or actions (like touching the ear or flipping off the camera) to make light of the serious incident.

• Support: Some content was explicitly supportive of Trump, using hashtags like #MAGA and #Trump2024, or displaying solidarity.

​

       The tone varied greatly, from seemingly neutral informing and opinionated discussions to speculative and even humorous or satirical takes, which evidently performed well on TikTok regardless of accuracy. The analysis of user media indicates a prevalence of speculation and less verified information compared to legacy media.

​

Results - Legacy Media
       Legacy media accounts on TikTok responded to the Trump assassination attempt with immediate and consistent coverage. Common themes included rapid updates confirming Trump’s condition, condemnation of political violence, details about the shooter, and reflections on security failures. Several outlets also highlighted the death of rally attendee Corey Comperatore and the broader political and social implications of the event. As shown in Table 1, the proportion of content dedicated to the assassination varied across outlets, with some producing multiple videos specifically about the incident. The average video length and engagement metrics provide additional insight into how legacy media used TikTok to inform and react during the one-week period following the event.

       As you will see in Table 1 below, the proportion of videos about Trump during the one-week period of Trump’s almost-assassination are displayed as well as the average time of each video created about the assassination. Using this Average Time Calculator, I was able to find the average time of each account’s content. This was the quantitative data extracted from the videos, along with other measures like follower, like, and comment count were recorded. 

Table 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

       The rest of the data is qualitative, examining the tone, themes and style of coverage. To code the videos, I adopted a strategy from Li et al. (2021) that conducted a TikTok content analysis on the coverage of COVID-19.  Their approach involved specific themes similar to the ones I have outlined below. These themes were used to code both the legacy media content and user-generated content.

Table 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​​​​
 

Common themes in their reporting included:

• Immediate Reporting: Announcing that shots were fired, Trump was rushed off stage, and his status ("safe," "fine," "being checked out").

• Condemnation of Violence: Featuring statements from figures like President Joe Biden unequivocally condemning political violence (“There’s no place in America for this kind of violence”).

• Details about the Shooter: Reporting on the identity of the suspected gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, including his age, background details (e.g., registered Republican, small donation to Democrats, used father's gun, lack of social media presence), and the weapon he used.

• Witness and Personal Accounts: Sharing interviews or reports from rally attendees, reporters, or others who witnessed the event or learned about it (“We got down and we huddled and we just started praying”).

• Focus on Security: Some outlets discussed the security measures in place and question the Secret Service for potential failures. Former Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy commented on the agents' training and response, noting that any injury to the protectee is considered a failure.

• Acknowledging the Victim: Reporting on the death of Corey Comperatore, the attendee who was killed while shielding his family, highlighting his heroism (“He was a hero shielding his family”).

• Broader Implications: Discussing potential impacts on the election and campaign, debates around gun control, and the circulation of misinformation and conspiracy theories online (“I think it dampened our protest unfortunately, there are too many guns in the nation and people are scared”).

• Increased Security for Candidates: Reporting on the decision to provide Secret Service protection to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and enhanced protection for Trump (“Both prior to, and after the events of this past weekend, the Secret Service enhanced Trump’s protection”).

​

       Legacy media primarily adopted a knowledge report approach, disseminating factual information, but also incorporated opinion, personal experience, and themes related to fight/justice and hope/prayer, particularly as reactions from politicians and the public were reported. 
       While all outlets covered the core facts, there were differences in emphasis. Right-leaning outlets like Fox News and The Daily Wire often highlighted Trump's strength, courage, and resilience, and featured opinions praising him. The Daily Wire also used the event and related themes for promotional material. Centrist outlets like Reuters and NewsNation covered a range of perspectives, including public reaction, gun control debates, and reports on the investigation and security aspects. Left-leaning outlets like The Washington Post and AP News also focused heavily on reporting the facts and covering reactions, including debunking false claims. The Washington Post specifically noted how social media fueled false narratives after the event. 

​

The Republican National Convention (RNC)
       A big part of the media coverage during the analyzed time period related to the RNC that took place from July 15-18, 2024, just two days after the assassination attempt. The proximity of the RNC to the assassination attempt added to the heightened emotions and urgency of the election. Below are different ways the assassination attempt was infiltrated into the RNC and the reporting that took place.

​

• Unifying Moment: The event was perceived by many attendees and speakers as a unifying force for the Republican party.

• Emphasis on Trump's Resilience and Strength: A major theme was highlighting Trump's survival, portraying him as a fighter, strong leader, or "American lion".

• Divine Intervention: Many supporters and speakers attributed Trump's survival to God's protection or a miracle.

• Trump Recounting the Event: Trump himself recounted the assassination attempt in detail during his RNC speeches, emphasizing his brush with death, his reaction ("fight"), and the crowd's response. He also acknowledged and honored Corey Comperatore.

• Visual Displays of Solidarity: A notable impact was the visible display of solidarity by RNC delegates and attendees wearing bandages on their right ears, mirroring Trump's injury, to show support and express that they are "in it for the fight".

• Merchandise: Merchandise featuring the iconic image of Trump pumping his fist with a bandaged ear and slogans like "fight, fight, fight" were popular and sold quickly at the RNC

       

       Reporting on the RNC by legacy media incorporated these elements. They covered Trump's appearance with the bandage, reported on speeches where the assassination attempt was discussed, and documented the solidarity displayed by attendees, such as the ear bandages and merchandise. The event became a central theme of the convention, shaping the tone and messaging of reporting by various media outlets. Some argued the convention was “more unifying than ever” for republicans after almost losing their prime presidential candidate.

 

Discussion
       This content analysis highlights the stark contrast between legacy media outlets and independent TikTok users in their communication strategies, tones, and engagement outcomes following the assassination attempt on Donald Trump between July 13–19, 2024. While both groups contributed to shaping public discourse, they did so through dramatically different lenses, one grounded in traditional journalism and institutional credibility, and the other in performative, emotionally resonant, and often speculative storytelling.

Legacy Media: Factual, Formal, and Framed by Ideology
       Legacy media accounts adhered to conventional journalistic tactics, focusing on factual reporting, official statements, and structured storytelling. Common themes included immediate updates on the event, details about the shooter, condemnation of violence from public figures, and broader election and security implications.
       However, the tone and emphasis changed significantly among different legacy media. Right-leaning outlets like Fox News, The Daily Wire, and The Wall Street Journal posted the highest proportion of assassination-related content compared to their overall output. Fox News dedicated 48.8% of its TikTok videos to the event, The Daily Wire 50%, and WSJ 44.8%. These videos were often framed around Trump’s heroism, his resilience, and his symbolic gestures at the Republican National Convention, such as the fist pump and bandaged ear, presented as patriotic iconography. Dana Perino’s comment referring to Trump as “an American lion” on Fox News’ account exemplifies how some videos leaned toward praise rather than objective reporting.
       Moderate outlets like NewsNation (43.9%) and Reuters (30.8%) provided more balanced coverage, including gun control debates, security breakdowns, and a broader analysis of voter sentiment and public reaction. Left-leaning outlets such as Yahoo News (60%), AP News (32.1%), and The Washington Post (12.5%) maintained a factual tone while often acknowledging misinformation, offering clarification, or emphasizing issues like the increase of online conspiracies. Notably, The Washington Post addressed how social media misinformation surged immediately after the attack, showing an awareness of TikTok’s volatile information ecosystem.
       Legacy media content predominantly fell into the category of “knowledge reports,” though some incorporated commentary and emotional language depending on their outlet’s political leaning. Average video lengths varied by outlet, with Yahoo News  (1 minute 20 seconds, respectively) and Fox News (1 minute 11 seconds, respectively) averaging the longest durations, suggesting more detailed storytelling. In contrast, outlets like The Daily Wire leaned into shorter, more emotionally charged content (34 seconds, respectively), more likely to boost retention and engagement on the platform.
       Despite their credibility and professional presentation, most legacy media videos did not generate the same level of user interaction as their user-generated counterparts. The exception was Fox News and WSJ, whose more dramatic or symbolic storytelling aligned better with TikTok’s emotionally reactive environment.

User Media: Emotionally Aware, Visually Compelling, and Successful in Algorithms
       In contrast, independent TikTok users responded with a broader spectrum of tone and style, often incorporating speculation, humor, or conspiratorial narratives. While some user videos were informative and sincere in their intent, many capitalized on shock value, emotion, or satirical interpretations of the event.
       One of the highest-engagement user videos posted by @principle888 used animated infographics with robotic voice over, gaining about 219,800 likes and 1,397 comments. This video presented a timeline of the event while including the phrase, “The person who attempted to assassinate Trump is truly a devil,” which added an emotional and moral framing that is absent from most mainstream coverage. While that kind of post would never be possible with legacy media, users have the ability to speak their minds without a filter, gaining more authenticity and traction.
       Speculation videos were also a popular style choice. A user-generated clip asked, “Was Donald Trump’s assassination attempt staged?” while suggesting that 45% of the X (Twitter) accounts promoting the "staged" theory were fake, introducing a conspiracy-adjacent angle that encouraged viewers to question official narratives. Another high-performing video suggested that the Secret Service might have been involved, with captions implying “Secret Service snipers” were the shooters. Despite a lack of evidence, these videos received thousands of likes and comments, supporting the notion that TikTok’s algorithm favors provocative content, regardless of its credibility.
       Humorous or satirical responses were also widespread. Videos like the one by @savannahfuhr, in which the creator licked her finger and touched her ear to mimic Trump’s wound, gained 69,600 likes and 1,347 comments, despite offering no factual content. Another creator used Call of Duty-style visuals to simulate the shooting, turning a national tragedy into a meme, an approach that likely resonated with younger audiences accustomed to ironic digital humor.
       Interestingly, even user videos that presented accurate or fact-checked content frequently relied on emotionally charged visuals or commentary to drive engagement. For instance, @julielouise1975 posted multiple updates using green-screen effects of CNN and NBC articles, paired with personal reactions or calls for prayer. Her videos regularly received 4,000+ likes and hundreds of comments, proving that emotional framing, even when rooted in fact, greatly enhances shareability.

TikTok: Credibility vs. Connectivity
       These findings align with prior literature suggesting that social media algorithms reward emotional salience and user resonance over informational accuracy (Zulli et al., 2024; Grandinetti & Bruinsma, 2023). While legacy media exercised its duty to report, their slower, more measured storytelling fell out of sync with the pace and emotional intensity of user-driven TikTok narratives, making the information ineffective. 
       Moreover, the results speak directly to agenda-setting theory (McCombs & Shaw, 1972), as both media types shaped public discourse, but with different degrees of control and intention. Legacy media attempted to guide the narrative toward institutional concerns like security reform and democratic stability, while user creators introduced fragmented, often contradictory narratives that spread more quickly and broadly due to their alignment with the platform’s algorithm mechanics.
This divergence also supports Westerwick et al.’s (2020) theory on confirmation bias in how users consumed and shared content that confirmed their pre-existing beliefs, particularly in videos that speculated about insider involvement or suggested political motives behind the attack. The use of popular hashtags like #Trump2024 or #MAGA demonstrated political party affiliations and encouraged in-group validation, regardless of factual basis.

The Challenge of Political Communication in a Decentralized Media Landscape
       Legacy outlets struggle to maintain control of the political narrative, even during crisis events. Meanwhile, independent creators who are operating without editorial oversight shape mass perception through emotionally potent, visually dynamic content that often bypasses fact-checking altogether. As the data shows, videos with lower factual reliability often achieved higher engagement, indicating a problematic incentive structure and corroborating the claims that misinformation is dispersed quicker than factual information made by Del Vicario et al. (2016)
       Even among more responsible creators, the incentive to dramatize or simplify complex events to meet TikTok's short-form content style raises ethical concerns. Platforms like TikTok are not inherently built to host political nuance or responsible journalism, yet they are rapidly becoming primary sources of political information for younger audiences.

​

Limitations
       While this study offers important insights into the differences between legacy media and user-generated content on TikTok, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the analysis was limited to a specific and brief time window: from July 13 to July 19, 2024, immediately following the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. While this timeframe was strategically chosen to capture initial reactions and peak engagement, it may have excluded long term narratives, the full evolution of public discourse, or any corrections and clarifications issued by media outlets after initial reporting. However, the news cycle is quick to move on to the next breaking news subject, meaning that there likely wasn’t much valuable information left after the first week of coverage.
       Second, the content coding was conducted by a single researcher. Although measures were taken to ensure consistency in categorization (e.g., tone, storytelling strategy), the subjective nature of qualitative content analysis poses a potential bias in interpretation. Involving more coders in the process could strengthen the reliability of the findings in future studies.
       Third, the classification of legacy media outlets based on political leaning relied on an existing media bias chart. While this tool offers a useful framework, they are not without controversy and may oversimplify the ideological positioning of complex media organizations.
       Finally, engagement metrics such as likes and comments were used as proxies for audience reception and impact, but they do not provide a full picture of audience sentiment or influence. For instance, high comment volume could reflect disagreement or confusion just as easily as support. Likewise, TikTok's algorithmic distribution means engagement levels can be influenced by variables outside of content quality, such as time of posting, trending sounds, or user demographics.
       Together, these limitations suggest that while this study provides meaningful patterns and comparative insights, its findings should be interpreted as exploratory rather than definitive. Future research could expand the scope by incorporating other social media platforms, considering geographical location, or investigating the impact of the assassination attempt on the 2024 election.

 

Conclusion
       This study explored how legacy media outlets and independent TikTok users communicated about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump in July 2024, revealing stark differences in tone, content strategy, and audience engagement. Using qualitative content analysis, it became clear that while legacy media prioritized factual reporting and institutional credibility, TikTok users leaned into emotionally engaging and often speculative narratives that better aligned with the platform’s algorithmic preferences.
       Legacy media outlets, especially those on the right, emphasized themes of heroism, resilience, religion, and political symbolism, while centrist and left-leaning outlets maintained more fact-based and policy-oriented coverage. However, even among the most active news organizations, engagement lagged behind user-generated content. Independent TikTok creators were able to generate significantly higher levels of interaction, often through humor, animation, conspiracy, or provocative framing. The viral success of videos questioning the official narrative or mocking the event underscores how emotional resonance and sensationalism are rewarded more than accuracy on social media platforms.
       These findings reinforce the relevance of agenda-setting theory in today’s media environment, while also highlighting how the rise of social media influencers, social media culture, and platform-driven incentives have fundamentally reshaped political discourse. Public figures outside of traditional media, whether creators, commentators, or conspiracy theorists, now hold disproportionate power in framing events, particularly among younger audiences who increasingly rely on TikTok as their primary source of news.
       Ultimately, this research emphasizes the urgent need for improved media literacy, platform accountability, and clearer boundaries between factual journalism and entertainment content. As misinformation spreads more rapidly than verified news, and as engagement becomes a proxy for trust, the integrity of political communication in democratic societies faces some profound challenges. Understanding these dynamics is not only critical for journalists and educators, but also for the platforms that facilitate political conversation at scale.

 

Bibliography
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23089 
AllSides. (n.d.). Media bias chart. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart 

DateTimeCalculator.net. (n.d.). Average time calculator. https://datetimecalculator.net/average-time-calculator 

Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113

Gonzalez, A., Schmuck, D., & Vandenbosch, L. (2023). Posting and framing politics: A content analysis of celebrities’, athletes’, and influencers’ Instagram political content. Information, Communication & Society, 27(8), 1605–1627. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2285495

Grandinetti, J., & Bruinsma, J. (2023). The affective algorithms of conspiracy TikTok. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 67(3), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2022.2140806 

Li, Y., Guan, M., Hammond, P., & Berrey, L. E. (2021). Communicating COVID-19 information on TikTok: a content analysis of TikTok videos from official accounts featured in the COVID-19 information hub. Health education research, 36(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyab010

​

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747787 

Severin-Nielsen, M. K. (2023). Politicians’ social media usage in a hybrid media environment: A scoping review of the literature between 2008–2022. Nordicom Review, 44(2), 172–193. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2023-0010

Statista. (2024). TikTok: Age distribution of global users 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1299771/tiktok-global-user-age-distribution/

Steinveg, B., & Bjørnå, H. (2023). Social media as an agenda-setting instrument in local politics. Nordicom Review, 44(2), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2023-0016 

Vraga, E. K., & Tully, M. (2019). News literacy, social media behaviors, and skepticism toward information on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 24(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637445

Zulli, D., Deyoe, D., Walker, C., & McKasy, M. (2024). Is it funny or a trend?: Examining US news humor on TikTok. The Communication Review, 27(3), 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2024.2359802