One of the most salient cases is the Sept. 10 killing of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University, the footage of which spread rapidly across social media platforms. Earlier examples include the Aug. 27 shooting at an Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, and the Aug. 22 stabbing of Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte train. In many instances, platforms either delayed removal of the footage or failed to require viewer warnings — exposing adolescents to graphic content they never intended to see.
“As humans, we may be curious and click on something shocking, but seeing someone murdered is deeply impactful,” says Sarah Chun, a school counselor. Jeff Mazzone, a counselor and co-founder of Harmonia Counseling, cautions that exposure, whether deliberate or accidental, can trigger a cascade of emotional responses. “Shock, danger, even a perverse thrill — the body’s physiological reaction can condition the brain toward seeking repeated exposure,” he warns.
Michael Horne, a clinical psychologist, adds that repeated exposure blunts sensitivity to violence. Over time, children may internalize the notion that brutality is normal — even acceptable. Meanwhile, diocesan officials note that as children are introduced to the internet and smartphones earlier, the threshold for exposure to violent or sexual content slips progressively younger.
Researchers are also discovering that traditional mental health interventions may be less potent in younger age groups. A UCL-led study found that talking therapies delivered via the NHS were around 25 percent less likely to yield “reliable recovery” in 16–24 year olds compared to older adults. Meanwhile, American researchers report that only 58.5 percent of U.S. teens consistently receive the social and emotional support they need.
In England, a recent NHS-commissioned survey revealed that one in four young people now lives with at least one common mental health condition such as anxiety or depression, with young women particularly affected. The combination of greater distress, more exposure to harmful content, and limits in the effectiveness of support poses a perfect storm.
Open conversation is first priority.
Create a calm, blame-free environment in which children feel safe discussing what they viewed. If they believe they’ll be punished or dismissed, they may shut down communication.
Set clear boundaries and digital rules.
Suggestions include turning off phones during meals, docking devices before bedtime in a shared space, and allowing social media only after age 13 — with parental oversight of privacy settings and contacts.
Teach gradual, supervised exposure.
Rather than an all-or-nothing ban, supervise early social media use, guide youth through interpreting media critically, and encourage breaks from screens. Studies suggest that community-based safety strategies are more effective than rigid parental control alone.
Watch for signs of distress or secondary trauma.
Teens may exhibit trouble sleeping, mood swings, withdrawal, intrusive images, or heightened anxiety. Secondary trauma can emerge from repeated exposure to news or social media coverage of violent incidents.
Access professional help early.
If a child exhibits persistent distress, seek support through counseling or mental health services. However, parents should be aware that younger clients may benefit less from standard talking therapies — and services may need adaptation.
Moreover, researchers are calling for a fundamental rethink of youth mental health support — emphasizing informal supports (friends, mentors), school-based counseling, and community networks rather than over-relying on clinical models alone. In 2025, mental health policy must match the urgency: adolescents face more stress, more screen time, and fewer tailored resources.
One thing remains clear — parents cannot assume “out of sight, out of mind” when it comes to violence online. Proactive engagement, thoughtful boundaries, and emotional connection are essential lines of defense.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
Is BetterHelp Worth It for Australians Seeking Therapy?
