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.

    • Count042
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      There is nothing nuanced about the indiscriminate slaughter of 1% of the Gazan population. So far. Trying to create nuance around genocide, is genocide denial. Nothing more.

      To you “Never Again” meant “Never Again, unless…”

      Also, I can’t believe you’d use a Harry Truman quote. Dude was so fucking stupid, even he knew how unprepared for the job he was. He was literally elected Senator because the local Democratic power broker couldn’t find anyone else willing to be his man in the Senate.

      Also, not a fucking kid. I’m 40 fucking years old, and I see the same stupid Democratic party leaders making the same fucking mistake and being shocked when the same thing happens. Fucking boomers, who are unwilling to give up power until it is pried from their stupid, lead-tainted, selfish fucking dead hands.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Biden has been forceful with Israel behind the scenes, placing conditions on the use of the arms and pushing Israel to back off. He can’t do so publicly because it would let the hostile countries sense a weakness.

      Neat fanfic. He hasn’t done any of this at all.

    • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      Exactly. Their “genocide” is a knee-jerk sensationalist reaction to the typical extremist news they’re used to reading. It’s almost always a lot more nuanced than it appears.

      As I like to say, life exists within the grey area that lies between the boundaries of black-and-white ideologies.

        • i3c8XHV@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Actually, its part if a Palestinian campaign to destroy Israel. Israel did offer a two state solution multiple times. Its the Palestinians that reject the right of Israel to exist, not the other way around.

          Sacrificing their own population to gain support doesn’t make them right.

                • i3c8XHV@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  The Israeli institution formally accepted the UN resolution that gave part of the land to the Jewish state and part of it to the Palestinians.

                  And yes, it happened in 1947, before Israel was formally declared.

                  And yes, the Palestinians rejected it and declared a war on Israel, stating that they “will push all the Jews to the sea”.

                  BTW, what is bantustan?