- cross-posted to:
- politics
- cross-posted to:
- politics
Just because Republicans choose unreality doesn’t mean the media should ignore the facts of January 6.
On January 6, 2021, I watched CNN as thousands of Donald Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol. As someone well-versed in watching tragedy on television, I was struck by just how indisputable the facts were at the time: violent, red-hat-clad MAGA rioters, followed by Republicans in Congress, tried to stop democracy in its tracks. Trump had told his followers that the protest in Washington, DC, “will be wild,” and in the assault that followed his speech, some rioters smeared feces on the walls of the Capitol. Hundreds of them have since been convicted on charges ranging from assault on federal officers to seditious conspiracy. These are stubborn facts, the kind that do not care about your feelings. These facts include the inalienable truth that Trump is the first president in American history to reject the peaceful transfer of power.
It never occurred to me that these facts could somehow be perverted by partisanship. But three years later, we are seeing just that, as Republicans cling to the lie that the 2020 election was “stolen” by Joe Biden and are poised to make Trump their 2024 nominee. And perhaps even more dangerous than the GOP ditching reality is the news media’s inability to cover Trumpism as the threat to democracy that it very much is.
…
But the problem is, when all you have is conventional political framing, everything looks like politics as usual. One candidate makes a claim; the other disputes it. Two sides are divided, etc. This framing only works if both parties operate within the frameworks of a shared reality. But Trumpism doesn’t allow for the reality the rest of us inhabit. Trump’s supporters believe their leader’s reality and not, say, the reality the rest of us see with our eyes. As Trump once told a crowd: “Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”
Journalists may be well-intentioned in trying to be “objective,” or they’re simply afraid of being labeled partisan. Either way, coverage of January 6 that gives equal weight to both sides—one based in reality, one not—is helping pave the road for authoritarianism.
“These guys” could just be foreign conflict bots, trying to promote mayhem.
“Everyone who is less than ecstatic about the genocide I love can’t possibly be genuine. It must be an international conspiracy because no one could possibly oppose genocide.”
Where’s that quote from? Is it made up?
Generally speaking, you’d have to be very naive to assume that foreign nationals would not want to affect the population of potential enemies, and try to manipulate them with specific narratives. The interconnection of the species, communication wise, has good points and bad points.
It’s certainly a convenient way to dismiss people who disagree with centrists’ support for genocide.
Where’s that quote from? Is it made up?
I was mocking a standard dismissal that centrists use when someone to their left has a point they don’t feel like actually addressing.
If you don’t want people saying that you’re baselessly dismissing opponents of genocide as foreign bots, don’t baselessly dismiss opponents of genocide as foreign bots.
So it’s just your opinion that you’re passing off as someone else’s quote.
I wasn’t. When I wrote that comment I wasn’t even thinking about ‘opponents of genocide’ at all. It was not meant as a verbal attack against ‘opponents of genocide’. You made that assumption via your biasis.
My comment was meant to bring awareness to the fact that some people/comments that are replied to could just be bots controlled by organizations that are trying to direct a narrative in a certain direction, and that’s all. No other judgments were being passed.
If you say so.
I just did.