Do you have a link, and did you read the full thing? It sounds too juicy not to be taken at least a little out of context.

Alright, I looked it up.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/23/17772056/south-africa-trump-tweet-afriforum-white-farmers-violence
Half the article is spent explaining that it definitely isn't true. It doesn't leave open the possibility of it being true.
Then it says that Trump has agencies at his command that could give him accurate information on demand, to make informed decisions.
It combines those two things to argue that Trump must have immediately directed the secretary of state to look into it, and made a public announcement, without making sure it's true.
Only then, at the very end, does it use the two paragraphs you quoted to say that that course of action is bad in general.
Poor wording, definitely, but not nearly as objectionable in context. They didn't put this part at the start of the article either, so it's not the usual headline-style motte-bailey switcharoo.

I initially wrote a gigantic shitpost of a reply but I deleted it.
The ending part which I posted doesn't add anything to the article and it makes absolutely no sense. It's even worse in context.
>wow let me just treat this subject and then say it's irrelevant if it is actually true or not even though I said it's not true because Trump saw it on TV on a channel that didn't shit on him non-stop during the elections.

The writer is just retarded and should be fucking fired but we are living in the age of journalism soft shitposting so maybe it's just bait.