The recent analysis of online discourse surrounding the Hamas-led assault on Israel reveals a significant shift in the media landscape. In the aftermath of the initial attack on October 7, a wave of emotionally charged posts surged on X, formerly known as Twitter. This change points to a transformation in who shapes narratives during global crises and raises critical concerns about the reliability of information shared on social media.

Research from the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public highlights this metamorphosis. Between October 7 and 10, the study tracked high-engagement tweets related to the conflict. Notably, seven individual accounts garnered more than 1.6 billion views, while traditional news outlets like CNN and The New York Times collectively reached only 112 million views. This stark contrast underscores a trend toward favoring sensationalism over substance in the quest for online influence.

Lead researcher Mike Caulfield emphasized that “it’s not the newsrooms with reporters on the ground that are getting the most attention.” Instead, independent accounts that share sensational video clips and emotionally driven content have eclipsed established media. Among these accounts, Collin Rugg stood out for his recurring themes of patriotism and solidarity with Israel, often supporting his posts with viral footage.

The dynamics of influence on X can be traced back to Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform. His engagement with these accounts, through follows and endorsements, significantly increased their visibility. The platform’s algorithm now rewards engagement, which means that content designed to provoke strong emotional reactions can overshadow more measured reporting. This shift raises pressing questions about the role of social media as a credible source of information amid global crises.

Despite their popularity, many of these accounts lack commitment to accuracy. For example, misleading claims regarding Hamas’s actions circulated widely, garnering millions of views before being checked, often long after they had permeated public discussion. The ramifications of this trend extend beyond misinformation; they shape public opinions and influence policy-making at both domestic and international levels.

Additionally, the breakdown of credibility signals underscores this evolving media landscape. Under Musk’s tenure, verification badges have become unreliable markers of trust. Instead, they now indicate paid subscriptions, further complicating the public’s ability to discern genuine journalism from fringe rhetoric. The absence of fact-checking measures and the algorithmic preference for emotionally charged content mean that unverified accounts can easily overshadow traditional news sources.

The challenges facing researchers trying to navigate this new environment are significant. Since early 2023, access to Twitter’s data APIs for academic research has been limited, complicating efforts to conduct thorough analyses of misinformation and narrative formations. The recent study relied on a manual search of X’s public interface, illustrating how challenging it is to study these emergent dynamics comprehensively.

Notably, Musk’s interactions with these so-called “new elites” contribute to a self-reinforcing cycle of visibility. His endorsements of viral posts have translated into increased exposure for these accounts, demonstrating that interaction at the top levels can propel less conventional voices to the forefront of the conversation. For users like Rugg, who thrive on emotional resonance, this environment provides a platform where attention can shift rapidly, but it also raises troubling implications for public discourse.

Rugg’s posts, infused with rhetoric that evokes patriotism and solidarity, serve as a case study for this new media climate. They illustrate a departure from traditional reporting, focusing instead on emotional engagement. The contemporary landscape of information-sharing favors those who can tap into public sentiment rather than those who adhere to stringent journalistic standards.

This change in the dynamics of influence reveals that, as Caulfield pointed out, the new landscape privileges “affect over accuracy.” The consequences of this shift are profound, shaping not only public perceptions but also societal responses to critical issues. As the lines between fact and emotional appeal blur, the responsibility of consumed information shifts, leading to a new era in which the loudest voices carry the most weight, regardless of their accuracy.