In Focus

We’ve become so desensitized that we can watch someone die in a video without feeling much emotion.

On October 17, two tragic events took place. In Guayaquil, Ecuador, Father Patricio Alfredo Sánchez Molinari died when a heavy wooden crucifix fell off the wall and hit him while he was livestreaming a Mass. In San Antonio, Texas, U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Ian Patterson died after falling during a pregame rappelling demonstration before a football game. Both of these events were captured on video and shared widely.

Quickly, the footage spread across social media and news stations. Some clips were edited to remove the moment of death, showing only what happened before and after. But others shared the uncut versions. It makes me wonder: when did we become so desensitized to seeing people die? When did this become entertainment for jokes and comments when a family has lost a loved one?

Desensitization is a psychological process where repeated exposure to disturbing content reduces a person’s emotional response. The more people see images or videos of death and violence, the less shocked or upset they may become. This doesn’t mean they lack empathy or don’t value human life; people respond differently, and sometimes emotional distance helps them cope.

Before social media, most people learned about death through newspapers, TV news, or personal experiences. Today, videos of fatal incidents can be shared across platforms in minutes, often without context or consideration for the victim’s family.

Both Father Sánchez Molinari and Patterson shouldn’t be remembered just for the way they died. Father Sánchez Molinari had a life and a religious community he cared for. Patterson had a 15-year military career, friends, and family. A few seconds of footage can’t capture the full story of either man’s life.

But social media can reduce a deeply personal loss to just a clip that people watch before moving on to the next post. Some share this footage thinking it documents an important event or shows what really happened. Others share it from shock, curiosity, or to get attention. Viewers respond in various ways—some with compassion, others making jokes, arguing about the situation, or criticizing those who are upset by what they see.

There are valid reasons to document tragic events. Videos can serve as evidence, help clarify facts, and reveal wrongdoing. However, there is a big difference between reporting on a death and sharing graphic footage just to shock people. We need to distinguish between showing reality and exploiting it for views.

Social media algorithms make this issue more complicated. Content that gets strong reactions often gets more views and shares. Even those who repost videos to condemn them can unintentionally increase their reach. Because of this, distressing videos can keep circulating long after the initial event.

While viewers can close an app and move on, a grieving family cannot just swipe away their loss.

Not everyone who watches disturbing footage has become desensitized. Some viewers are seeking to understand what happened, while others might feel shocked or unsure how to react. A person’s response to a video doesn’t fully reflect their character.

The deaths of Father Sánchez Molinari and Tech. Sgt. Patterson remind us that the people in these videos are not just fictional characters or anonymous figures for entertainment. They are real human beings with lives that mattered beyond their final moments.

The important question is not whether we should look away from every tragedy, but whether we can witness these events while still recognizing the humanity of those affected.