Information and commentary on the case in the US and in the world are interpreted in a variety of ways, making the reader confused. After all, what does the air strike mean?
Attack on Trump
Trump’s opponents immediately said the air raid was intended to divert public opinion from a series of personal and political scandals those are surrounding Mr. Trump.
Some other opponents, particularly those who want to run the 2020 presidency, says the strike is unconstitutional and should be consulted with Congress. That was another form of “crime” against Trump who wanted to get him out of the presidency.
Many questioned the nature of the “operation” of the air strikes. “Surgical strike” refers to military attacks aimed at “legitimate” targets, and attempts to limit unintentional damage, such as death.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is not worried about the attack. US Defense Secretary James Mattis has even declared it a “one-off” attack, which will not happen next.
Mr Trump is often accused of over-supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin. Conspiracy theorists have appeared all over the news, claiming that the bland American air raid was a testament to his complicity with the Russians.
Trump himself did not feel any satisfactory resolution of the embargo on Putin. In doing so, he went against the US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who declared the embargo on the Security Council.
Conspiracy theories also do not let Prime Minister Theresa May. The story goes that the United States and many other nations united with Britain when the Russians were accused of poisoning a former spy living in London.
The attack on Syria was initiated by the United States, Britain and France. But the opposition turned it into an anti-Brexit story. Prime Minister Theresa May is allegedly involved in air strikes to direct public opinion not to focus on the story of efforts to withdraw Britain from the European Union.
Is journalism impartial?
The Syrian air strike portrays a condensed version of how much American media was immersed in trying to smear Mr. Trump, or flip him off the presidency.
True media is “throwing everything they can, to the wall with the hope that it will stick there,” just like doing it and watching everything. Perhaps Trump and his colleagues deserves that: his support for leadership, according to a Pew Center study, is only 30%.
The public’s appreciation, however, is not based on thorough information, even after they have littered up news from various media, which is not good for human democracy. America, especially for an “extraordinary” president.
How do people make political decisions with such misleading, contradictory and disorganized information? They cannot. They are withdrawing from politics and consuming selective, targeted news that serves their own prejudices. The public is deeply dispersed.
Some people may think that we are mixing news stories with comments. But, as part of the negative, the news becomes more and more prejudiced, subjective, obliterated boundaries.
All this is worse because of social media commentators, as well as biases hiding behind posts on political events on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google. This must stop. The media must return to the professional media like before Trump and Obama.