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.

  • @badaboomxx
    link
    111 months ago

    He was doing thr ad hominem, how comes that I got the message deleted and not him?

      • @badaboomxx
        link
        1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I never called that person a loser.

        And he is calling me a genocide apologist, which I am not, which one is worse?

        • @jordanlundM
          link
          111 months ago

          You called them an idiot, which is the definition of an ad hominem attack. Your other comment that was removed had you calling someone else an idiot and a loser.

          This is not a debate. It’s plainly listed in the modlog.

          Keep it up, get a temp. ban.

          • @badaboomxx
            link
            1
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            So basically the other user can call me a genocide apologist without repercussions… sure whatever. I am out of this place if the things are like that

            Thanks for letting me know how the mods are here.

            Have fun with the russian bots.

            • @jordanlundM
              link
              111 months ago

              Genocide apologist is a matter of opinion that can be argued against. You’re an adult, use your words. Don’t bring insults into it and you’re golden.

              • @badaboomxx
                link
                111 months ago

                It is not, is like saying that someone is a nazi because they are losing an argument.

                Don’t worry, I won’t be posting here anymore. I know that is going to happen regardless. And if a maga can claim that others are something without repercussions, I know what will happen here. Still best of the luck, you will need it.