Violence, Salience, and Media Structure: A Comparative Study of Political Assassination in The United States

Abstract

This work examines how media systems shape agenda-setting after elite targeted political violence. Comparing coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, it asks how differences in media environments influence framing, responsibility attribution, policy salience, tone, and elite unity. Employing a comparative qualitative content analysis of 100 articles from the New York Times and Washington Post, the study finds that the historical case media structure produced unified narratives centered on national mourning, clear individual responsibility, elite consensus. The contemporary case was characterized by politicized framing, contested attribution, and reduced elite unity. Across both cases, policy discussion was limited, inferring that political violence functions as a weak trigger for policy agendas. The findings demonstrate that agenda-setting power is dependent on media structure, shifting from coordinated narrative formation to multiple and competing interpretations in the contemporary media environment.