In the modern age of instant media and viral videos, it’s hard to imagine a time when news traveled much slower and information was not as easily accessible. But this was the reality of the 1960s, a decade that saw some of the most significant political assassinations in history. The deaths of President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy were all captured on film, but the way in which these videos spread, or in some cases didn’t spread, reveals crucial differences between the 1960s and today.
During the 1960s, the role of media in society was vastly different than what we know today. Television was still a relatively new technology, and the internet was non-existent. This meant that people relied on traditional forms of media, such as newspapers and radio, for their news. The limited and controlled nature of these sources made it much harder for videos of assassinations to spread quickly.
In the case of JFK’s assassination, the famous Zapruder film wasn’t shown on television until four days after the event. The film, which captured the moment of the president’s death, was initially considered too graphic for television and was only shown on newsreels in movie theaters. This delay in the dissemination of the film meant that the shock and horror of the event was not as widespread as it would have been in today’s fast-paced media landscape.
Similarly, the footage of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination only became widely available months after the event. The iconic photograph of King lying on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel spread quickly, but the actual footage of the shooting was only broadcast on television a few months later. This was due to the fact that the footage had to be processed and edited before being aired on television, a process that took much longer than it would today.
In the case of Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination, the video footage captured by a bystander was not released to the public until years later. The footage, which shows the chaos and confusion immediately following the shooting, was deemed too graphic and sensitive to be broadcast at the time. This highlights another key difference between the 1960s and today – the level of censorship and control in media.
It’s clear that in the 1960s, videos of assassinations were not able to spread as quickly and widely as they do today. The controlled nature of traditional media and the lack of technology made it much harder for these videos to go viral. However, in today’s digital age, videos of assassinations can spread with just a click of a button, reaching millions of people within minutes.
The rise of social media and citizen journalism has played a crucial role in the spread of such videos. With platforms like Twitter and Facebook, anyone can become a source of news and share videos of significant events in real time. This has led to a democratization of information and has made it much harder for governments and media outlets to control the spread of information.
However, this freedom of information also comes with its own set of challenges. The spread of fake news and misinformation is a prevalent issue in today’s media landscape. This has made it crucial for individuals to verify the authenticity of information before sharing it, especially in the case of sensitive or traumatic events.
In conclusion, the differences in the spread of videos of assassinations between the 1960s and today highlight the dramatic changes in media and technology. While the controlled and limited nature of traditional media made it harder for these videos to spread in the 1960s, the rise of social media has made them go viral almost instantly in modern times. However, with this freedom of information comes the responsibility to verify and fact-check before sharing, ensuring that we become responsible and informed consumers of media.
