Misreading the Facts About Syria

In a world where global news is available at the click of a button 24 hours per day, seven days a week, it is imperative that we do our best to be well informed on the issues of our time. All too often, people misread (or don’t read at all) articles about what is happening in American politics and international relations; instead, they fill their brains with half-baked, misleading ideas.

The media response to missile strikes carried out by the United States, France and Britain against Syria is just one recent example. Most headlines read some simple statement like, “Trump Strikes Syria.” And from witnessing the public reaction, especially that of teenagers, to the strikes, it is easy to tell that most people did not move past reading the breaking news notification on their phone.

I saw inaccurate Instagram posts and Snapchat stories, and heard arguments against Trump’s strike, most of which were grounded in the fact that killing civilians in Syria is not an appropriate response to the chemical weapon attacks perpetrated by Assad against his own people. This would be logically sound—if it were true in any way, shape or form. What truly happened was that the United States, France and Britain collectively destroyed storage areas and testing plants for the chemical weapons Assad used in the recent attacks. The purpose of the counter-attack on behalf of the three nations was not only to intimidate Assad, but also destabilize his reign of terror by destroying some of his most valued weapons.

The “fake news” that Donald Trump talks about all the time is not truly “fake.” The issue is that people read part of the real news, and come to false conclusions about what occurred. This leads to further polarization in our country and hinders progress because we find ourselves debating facts, not opinions. At Exeter, we learn how dangerous it is to argue over truths and we are seeing its effects out in the real world today.

For many Americans, Donald Trump is enemy number one. I know that I am guilty of reading a headline that includes the name “Trump” and bracing myself for what I am sure will be a crazy article about another one of our President’s many blunders. Yet when we get into this habit of only looking at the first few sentences of a story, we assume that we can piece the rest together based on past knowledge.

I know that some people despise Trump so much that they would not be surprised if he did decide one day to kill innocent civilians in the Middle East, but the fact of the matter is that he did no such thing. Assad’s attacks were nothing short of pure evil, and our leader responded, in my opinion, with a well-coordinated attack that had moral backing. But now, because of a lack of information, many people have condemned the actions taken by the United States, France and Britain.

It is our moral obligation in an age where we have such an abundance of information at our disposal to ensure that we are bolstering opinions supported by facts, not interpretation.

The “fake news” that Donald Trump talks about all the time is not truly “fake.” The issue is that people read part of the real news, and come to false conclusions about what occurred. This leads to further polarization in our country and hinders progress because we find ourselves debating facts, not opinions. At Exeter, we learn how dangerous it is to argue over truths and we are seeing its effects out in the real world today.