In the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt on former President Trump, social media were treating us to an endless stream of uninformed “hot takes.” Although the better part of wisdom would refuse public speculation, precious few were so restrained. We were told that the shooter was a member of Antifa. We were told that he was Italian. There were even pictures circulating of some poor guy who was identified to be the shooter but who actually had nothing to do with any of it.
Within minutes of the shooting, images and video from the site of the shooting began circulating. Some of these appeared on social media in misleading ways. I saw one video showing a deceased person being removed from the bleachers near the podium. The text attached to the video said that it was the body of the shooter. We now know that it wasn’t the shooter because the shooter was not in the bleachers but was lying deceased on a nearby rooftop.
Also in the immediate aftermath, a tsunami of speculation about the shooter’s motive began to flood social media. Everyone had an opinion. Before the shooter’s name had even been released, armchair commentators on the right informed us that the shooter was a man of the left who was trying to kill former President Trump for political reasons. Armchair commentators on the left were telling us that perhaps Trump incited this violent response by his own provocative rhetoric and policies.
Both sides were grasping for a narrative to confirm their political priors—that the other side is hopelessly corrupt and somehow complicit in grave evil. Such amateur analysts viewing it all on television from the safety of their own homes somehow already knew what it all meant. No facts or evidence necessary. Who needs facts when it’s so much more satisfying to assume the worst of your political opponents?
Probably the meanest stream of speculation focused on the female agents that were involved in protecting the president. Social media were flush with images of female agents looking either hapless or otherwise responding ineffectively in their defense of the president. Some of the memes were cruel, and I won’t share them here. Again, without any facts or evidence, armchair critics alleged that DEI had lowered physical standards for Secret Service agents in order to include more female agents, and that fact explained their seemingly ineffective response. And yet by Friday, reports revealed that many of the agents guarding the President weren’t even from the Secret Service but from Homeland Security Investigations. Thus, we aren’t even sure that these women are even in the Secret Service. By the way, I share the concerns people have about DEI in hiring, including at the Secret Service. I’m persuaded that it’s a real issue. I’m merely pointing out that we don’t know yet if these particular agents are even in the Secret Service, much less if their hiring is DEI related.
Why is any of this important? It’s important because our national life is ill-served when people are deceived by misinformation. Nor is it served by citizens who are willing to believe baseless allegations on the internet simply because the allegations confirm their priors. If we care about truth, we must be more discerning than that. We must not be so polarized that we fail do discern the difference between facts/evidence and our own prejudices. Failing to discern the difference is a sure path to self-deception and to deceiving others.
A biblical view of justice understands that any allegation must be established by multiple witnesses. If there are no witnesses, then authorities must investigate for any other evidence that might disprove or establish the allegation (Deut. 19:15-21; Matt. 18:15-17). If there are multiple witnesses, then their testimony should be tested and weighed (Prov. 18:17). All of this is basic due process, and it ought to be the NorthStar for those who don’t want to be carried away by every idle report that passes across their social media feeds.
Shootings and other disastrous news events are famous for their ability to generate a fog of misinformation—especially in the initial minutes and hours following the event. It is during these times that we need to be most vigilant about our own potential involvement in misinformation. In general, it is wise to take all the initial reports with a giant grain of salt. Even the best of reporters sometimes get the facts wrong in the immediate aftermath of such an event. Why would we expect random strangers on X to do any better? We would all do well to maintain a posture of incredulity until the fog clears. That also means that we should be attuned to our own priors and to make sure that we don’t confuse them with facts and evidence.
