An interesting experiment in human nature is on display for us on a national and a local scale.

On a local level, a man posted in an eastern Washington-based group on Facebook. The message included photos of a chain link fence showing a relatively small amount of damage to a small portion of the links and one tension bar. The man, who caused the damage, asked how much it would be to fix the fence shown in the photos. He said his boss wants him to pay five-hundred bucks to fix it.

This elicited a number of responses. At the time of writing my column, more than 150 comments were recorded on this message. A few answered the question with reassurances that it shouldn’t cost that much money. A few more questioned what happened and why he is being asked to pay for it.

Lastly, there was a big group of commenters who immediately concluded the boss was a very bad man (I am refraining from using some of the adjectives used to describe the boss.) Some suggested the person quit and find a new job. Others thought he should sue his boss.

We don’t know the story at all. Yet, people have immediately assumed the worst about someone based on an incomplete story.

Thankfully, some showed real logic when they withheld judgment because not enough information was provided for a valid position.

I can quickly think of several reasons why the man would need to cover the cost of damaging something at work. The point is that people, with little to no information, have made up their mind by assuming the boss is a jerk.

Let’s look at another situation that has taken place on a national stage.

Before I bring it up, I would like to remind my readers about an incident from a few years ago. Y’all remember high school student Nicholas Sandmann? He was the kid who was shown with a red MAGA baseball hat while standing in front of a man who was playing a drum. The national narrative made Sandmann out to be a terrible person. That was pushed for days on end by news sources around the country. When the whole story was told, Sandmann became very rich.

Today, I will bring up Kyle Rittenhouse. During last summer’s riots, he went to Kenosha, Wis., with the expressed purpose to help people medically and to help protect property. After a series of events, he ended up shooting and killing two men and injuring another. Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old at the time, was indicted on murder and other charges. Although accurate information was available, news reports and pundits nationwide knowingly spread false information about Rittenhouse. Because of this, he was called a domestic terrorist and white supremacist.

While his current trial is finally dispelling the false information to the general public, there are still news sources that are pushing inaccurate information. You probably heard the judge will not allow the prosecutor to refer to those shot as “victims.” And you were told they could be called “arsonists,” “looters” and/or “rioters.”

Well, that is not the whole story. There was a second part to that statement. Specifically the use of those descriptors would require proof that they are accurate.

Unlike the local case I outlined above, I believe those who are reporting on Rittenhouse and Sandmann, for that matter, were knowingly reporting false information.

Even President Biden tied Rittenhouse to right-wing extremist militia groups and further said many of these groups are white supremacist groups.

Reporters and others, including President Biden, have made, and are still making, highly inaccurate statements about Rittenhouse.

Far too often people make snap decisions without pertinent and accurate information. Whether it’s the story of the chain link fence repair or the supposed white supremacist who went on a shooting rampage, until pertinent and accurate information is available the logical choice is to not take a position.

Anderson is a computer programmer who enjoys serving the community through various community-oriented service jobs.

Recommended for you