INFAMOUS: Lessons learned from the Boston Bombing’s Social Interest

The morning of April 15, 2013, started like any other Patriots Day in Boston. By the afternoon, it had become a defining moment for how we understand the intersection of social media, public safety, and crisis communications. For PIOs, the Boston Bombing fundamentally altered how we approach social media during emergencies.

As the tragedy unfolded, something unprecedented happened: millions of people instinctively reached for their phones, opening Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to seek information, share updates, and offer support. The impulse was initially understandable: when crisis strikes, we want to connect, to help, to make sense of chaos.

Yet the rapidly intensifying social media chatter quickly transformed into something far more problematic. Many users became intoxicated by the possibility of playing detective, turning a terrorist investigation into a form of digital entertainment. The very features that make social media powerful during crises - speed, reach, and the ability to amplify voices - proved to be dangerous in the hands of internet sleuths.

I spoke to John Guilfoil, who served as Deputy Press Secretary for Mayor Menino at the time of the incident, about how different the amount of social interest they received truly was. He now applies this experience and expertise to his private public relations consulting firm, John Guilfoil Public Relations.

“Most people don't spend their days listening to police scanners, but on Marathon Monday 2013, thousands of people were tuning in via online livestreams. And they took to Twitter in droves,” Guilfoil said. “In the first hours after the bombing, amateur interpretations of police procedures led to wild speculation about 'suspicious devices' or potential bombs all over Boston and on every college campus.”

The most disturbing example came during the manhunt for the suspects. Rather than leaving the investigation to trained professionals, thousands of social media users appointed themselves amateur investigators. They poured over photographs from the scene, circulated wild theories, and shared unverified tips with the hashtag #findbostonbombers. Reddit users created dedicated threads to crowdsource the investigation, treating the search for terrorists like a collaborative game. Twitter users spread photos of people they deemed suspicious based on nothing more than appearance, ethnicity, or proximity to the bombing site.

The public's reckless enthusiasm for playing investigator had devastating consequences. Innocent individuals found their faces plastered across social media platforms, labeled as suspected terrorists by strangers who had appointed themselves judge and jury. Sunil Tripathi, a missing Brown University student, was falsely identified as one of the bombers on Reddit. His family, already devastated by his disappearance, faced a torrent of accusations and threats from people who felt entitled to destroy lives based on speculation. Other innocent people experienced similar ordeals, their safety and reputation sacrificed to feed the public's appetite for involvement.

Some traditional media outlets, caught up in the frenzy and pressure to break news quickly, amplified these crowd-sourced accusations without proper verification. The line between responsible journalism and reckless speculation became blurred as the public's amateur detective work gained momentum and credibility it never deserved.

Meanwhile, law enforcement officials and crisis communicators found themselves fighting a two-front battle. Not only were they working to solve an actual terrorist attack, but they were also dealing with the chaos created by an overeager public that had turned their investigation into a social media spectacle.

“It was hugely important that the Mayors' Office and Boston Police were monitoring this, and we were active and involved. We got on social media during those vital early hours and, among other things, we reminded residents-- and the news media -- not to use unattributed information or speculation.” Guilfoil recalled. “If you didn't get your news from the Boston Police or Mayor Tom Menino on social media, then you should consider it unofficial and avoid contributing to the confusion. It worked. The white noise on social media all but stopped once people knew that the officials were actively talking and engaging them online.”

For PIOs watching, the Boston Bombing served as a harsh lesson about human nature in the digital age. It demonstrated that given the opportunity, many people will prioritize their desire to feel involved and important over the safety and privacy of innocent individuals. The incident revealed that the public's relationship with social media during emergencies isn't just about seeking information; it's often about seeking excitement and a sense of participation, regardless of the consequences.

In response to this unprecedented challenge, crisis communicators and organizations began developing new strategies to manage not just information flow, but public behavior. Real-time social media monitoring became essential, with teams dedicated to tracking and countering the rumors and false accusations generated by overenthusiastic citizens. Clear designation of official sources took on new importance as agencies worked to establish authoritative voices that could cut through the noise created by amateur investigators.

Technology evolved to help professional communicators fight back against public misinformation campaigns. New monitoring tools emerged that could track hashtags, identify trending false claims, and alert communications teams to dangerous speculation before it could destroy more lives. Partnerships between government agencies and social media companies became more formalized, creating faster pathways to remove harmful content promoted by irresponsible users.

Perhaps most importantly, the Boston Bombing taught crisis communicators that they now needed to actively protect the public from itself. Their role expanded beyond simply sharing accurate information to actively combating the dangerous speculation and false accusations generated by citizens who confused a terrorism investigation with a social media game. Speed became crucial not just for sharing facts, but for correcting the lies and rumors spread by people more interested in feeling important than in protecting innocent lives.

The lessons from that April day in Boston continue to influence crisis communications more than a decade later. Every major emergency since has been shaped by the understanding that social media gives the public unprecedented power to interfere with professional investigations and endanger innocent people in the name of participation and excitement.