For all the hoopla about this, when I watched the video, what I took from it is that
social media has become an information sharing vehicle whereby users share information that they (or their sources) have not thoroughly confirmed the factual and contextual accuracy of the information they distribute/post.
Why, in these Internet-enabled times anyone "gets away" with publishing anything that is not is not 100% factually and contextually accurate is beyond me. Never before have people had as much handy access to raw facts and contextually explicative content needed to verify the accuracy and representational faithfulness of what speakers/writers of all stripes and levels say, yet it seems people seem content to remain mired in "old school" paradigms whereby one has little choice but to trust and rely on a communicator's social stature as a proxy for gauging the veracity of their remarks.
For example:
Recently, Trump suggested that the Democrats didn't want a DACA resolution. One'd have to be either grossly uninformed or a complete idiot or both to believe that. To wit:
- January 9: Trump held a bipartisan meeting at the White House wherein he indicated multiple times he is willing to compromise on DACA, saying "when this group comes back -- hopefully with an agreement -- this group and others from the Senate, from the House, comes back with an agreement, I'm signing it."
- January 11: Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham go to the White House to propose to Trump a compromise worked out by their group of six bipartisan senators. The offer included:
-- a path to citizenship for DACA immigrants,
-- the first year of Trump's border wall funding,
-- ending the diversity visa lottery and reallocating those visas, and
-- restricting the ability of former DACA recipients to sponsor family.
Trump rejected the deal. The bill didn't make it to the floors of the chambers of Congress.
- January 19: Schumer and Trump meet for lunch at the White House. Schumer offered Trump the upwards of $20 billion he wanted for his border wall in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for the eligible immigrant population.
Trump rejected the deal. The bill didn't make it to floor of the legislature.
- February 14: A bipartisan group of senators unveils a compromise plan, which includes:
-- $25 billion for the Wall,
-- a pathway to citizenship for DACA immigrants,
-- cuts to one slim category of family-based migration and
-- prevents the parents who brought their children to the US illegally from ever being sponsored for citizenship by those children.
Trump rejected the deal and whipped up votes against it in the Senate to prevent its passage.
Next, on
February 26th, the SCOTUS declines to take up an immediate appeal of court decisions resuming DACA renewals, ensuring no deportations of DACA recipients for months and taking pressure of Congress. As one might expect given Trump's refusal to agree to three consecutive proposals on resolving DACA and getting his wall funding, Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle give up, and one can't really blame them.
Yet what is Trump saying? He's saying that Democrats don't want to resolve DACA.
Now you tell me...in light of the above facts, how accurate a representation is it that Democrats don't wan to resolve DACA? It's not at all accurate. They tried three times to do so, and Trump opposed all three offers, all three of which had a DACA resolution and funding for his wall, even as he professed to want both.
Another example:
Trump has suggested that foreigners illegally immigrate to the U.S. to avail themselves of the DACA provisions in our immigration laws.
Now I can't say whether people have such a thing in mind when they embark upon coming here, but I can say that if they do, things will not in that regard pan out as they hope. Why? Because DACA's terms have requirements current and future immigrants cannot meet. To be eligible for DACA status:
- One must have resided continuously in the U.S. since 2007, and
- One must have been physically present in the U.S. in June 2012, and
- One had to have arrived in the U.S. as a minor.
The above examples illustrate that one of the most prolific users of media and social media to spread disinformation, inaccurate information, misleading information is Donald Trump. To the extent that others echo his unfounded messages/points, they are doing the same thing.
Do they do it out of indolence, ineptitude or willful ignorance? For any given individual, I really cannot say, but I can say that it's mighty irksome that so many people do so.
