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.
We’re saying the only way to avoid a trump wanna be dictatorship, and even longer term fucking of the US, which is allowing Biden to lose.
Biden could stop supporting genocide if he doesn’t want to lose votes of people for whom genocide is a dealbreaker.
I’m voting for biden, but I expect you will ignore this sentence.
I’m still hoping Biden has the balls to tell Netanyahu to fuck off.
However, I assume the calculation between voters who’ll drop him after conflating support for Israel with support for the Jewish people are greater than, or at least the same as, voters who are dropping him now for allowing this Palestinian genocide.
It’s a lose-lose choice the Dems, which is exactly why it seems likely that Russia convinced Iran to back Hamas’ attack in the first place (Israel’s Apartheid is still the reason terrorists felt they had no other option). It might be a crazy conspiracy, but that’s where we ended up, however it started.
I’m with you though that it sucks that our only rational choice is to vote for not-a-wannabe-dictator, when thousands of people’s lives are currently at stake.
However, I assume the calculation between voters who’ll drop him after conflating support for Israel with support for the Jewish people are greater than, or at least the same as, voters who are dropping him now for allowing this Palestinian genocide.
I do not make charitable assumptions about people who support genocide.
What’s charitable about pointing out how they’re likely ignoring lives based on polling?
Your sounding like more and more of a shill as you go on.
