It has become a regular issue among reporters, representing legacy or citizen-backed media, to reach conclusions with limited information. Sensationalism has not diminished with the rise of citizen journalism. It has been exaggerated for the sake of gaining recognition and followers, and it is a dangerous policy that leaves the public ruminating over incomplete information and reaching, what could be, inaccurate conclusions.
The horrific flooding that snared hundreds of individuals, including dozens of innocent children caught by the torrent, has become a vehicle for accusations emanating from all sides. Facts are slow to be verified in the wake of disasters, including those of natural origin. The penchant to attach blame is rooted in a need to know that can assuage hurt and anguish, but is more likely, these days, to have political innuendo. Media-driven politics is inappropriate though evident as it can assume, and has assumed, overtones of religious and personal defamation.
For lack of facts, the first accusatory volleys were launched at the president, followed by racial and religious slurs against victims. Then blame was directed at possible cloud seeding activity, and “climate denialism,” but the final finger-pointing is derived from the language of insurers, condemning the usual suspect – God.
When confronting a phenomenon or disaster that is inexplicable or overwhelming, it has become a long-standing practice to lay blame at the feet of God. “Act of God” has been incorporated into both faith and legal terminology, and, as in the instance of devastation in Texas, North Carolina, and New Mexico, is invoked by preachers, commentators, and social media users.
But is it true?
For corporations, municipalities, and government agents caught in the crosshairs of accountability, God is the handy scapegoat because no one else is conveniently available to shoulder liability, particularly if it entails financial compensation. Hence, the legal wording to hide behind.