Outrage Before Evidence: How Narrative Is Replacing Skepticism

by: Jessie Simmons

Category: Op-Ed

There is a growing pattern in our public discourse that should concern anyone who values social cohesion and democratic stability. Increasingly, stories are framed in ways that do more than report events. They tell the audience what to believe about intent, morality, and blame before the facts are fully established. Skepticism, once considered a civic virtue, is now often treated as suspicion or even hostility. The result is a public conversation driven less by evidence and more by narrative momentum.

The recent viral claim that immigration officers used a five year old child as “human bait” is a clear example of this dynamic. The phrase itself is not a neutral description of events. It is an accusation that presumes motive and cruelty before any investigation has been completed. Once that language enters the discussion, the story ceases to be about what happened and becomes a moral test. Accept the framing immediately or risk being cast as someone who excuses abuse. In this case, the administration pushed back, stating that officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement remained with a child who had been abandoned by a parent during an enforcement action. Whether one accepts that explanation or not, the broader issue remains that the initial framing traveled faster and farther than any clarification ever could.

What is often missing from these reactions is historical context. Chaotic enforcement encounters are not a modern invention. Anyone who worked in construction, agriculture, or manufacturing in the late 1990s and early 2000s likely remembers surprise worksite raids conducted by the former INS, long before the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Jobsites were locked down without warning. Workers scattered in fear. Families were separated on the spot. Equipment was left running and vehicles abandoned. Confusion and disruption were not rare outcomes. They were built into the tactic.

What has changed since then is not the existence of chaos, but the way it is processed and presented to the public. In earlier decades, these events were understood as harsh and often tragic consequences of enforcement policy, but they were not instantly converted into national moral indictments. Today, a partial account or a single image can be elevated into definitive proof of intent within hours. Social media and modern news cycles reward emotional certainty, not restraint. Language that inflames travels farther than language that explains.

This dynamic deepens division among citizens. People are no longer debating facts or policy tradeoffs. They are being sorted into camps based on whether they immediately adopt a particular moral narrative. Skepticism is reframed as complicity. Requests for verification are treated as bad faith. Once disagreement is moralized, trust between citizens erodes quickly, and productive dialogue becomes nearly impossible.

None of this requires blind faith in government statements or enforcement agencies. Scrutiny is necessary, and accountability matters. Abuse should be exposed wherever it occurs. But scrutiny without skepticism is not scrutiny. It is advocacy. A healthy civic culture depends on the ability to slow down, separate verified facts from interpretation, and allow room for uncertainty while evidence is gathered.

The “human bait” story should prompt a larger reflection than who won the latest rhetorical battle. It should force us to ask whether we still value skepticism as a stabilizing force, whether we are willing to wait for context before judgment, and whether we can disagree without assuming malicious intent in our neighbors. In a society already strained by polarization, the loss of that discipline may be more damaging than any single headline.