About No Context:

Let’s be real: it’s social media, and posts are brief, and no one should expect full explanations of complex situations there. Not that this means that talking about such situations should be off limits. But expressing a partisan conclusion with a pretense of “as we all know” allows all manner of manipulations. For example, some time after the Biden administration made a deal with Iran to release American prisoners, a Republican leader posted simply: “Rewarding Iran for taking Americans hostage incentivizes more hostage-taking.”

Think of all the critical details that this statement doesn’t address. Is it accurate to say Biden “rewarded” Iran? Were there any other options available, and if not, should we have just left the prisoners there to rot? What did those Americans do to prompt their imprisonment? Why is it accurate to refer to it “hostage-taking” by Iran?

None of this proves that this Republican’s assessment is wrong; it might be spot-on. And this might be an appropriate way to summarize one’s own position to an audience of foreign policy experts. But a social media audience knows next to nothing about the details. And the barking responses to the post from both sides might pretend to understand but rarely provide additional information.

When political leaders post simplistic, partisan assessments about complex situations, it encourages an unhealthy dynamic where fellow partisans are conditioned to uncritically accept everything their leaders say, without comprehension. Empty talking points accumulate into a pseudo-rational case for their side and against the other.

The simple addition of a link to an authoritative source in the above Republican’s post would eliminate the issue.

Now, similarly, consider this post by a Democrat: “The epidemic of police killings of Black men continues to grow.” What important details does this conclusion not convey?