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.

  • i3c8XHV@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Hamas chose this to be a war zone by firing rockets from there and building tunnels there and holding hostages there.

    IDF didn’t choose Gaza to be the battlefield, Hamas chose it.

    If Hamas can’t stand the heat, maybe they should step out of the kitchen.

    • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      genocidal statement ^

      It’s their home, they live there are are being ethnically cleansed as collective punishment for resisting occupation.

      Ironically it seems like it’s occupation forces who can’t handle the heat considering their only recourse is lashing out at defenseless civilians.

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

        They are being ordered to evacuate a war zone that Hamas chose. Hamas chose to use them as human shields. Israel is trying to get them out of the warzone.

        Would you prefer they were not “ethnically cleansed” to shelters in the south? Would you prefer they die when the IDF attacks Hamas infrastructure and militants in the active warzones in the strip?

        Or is it just that you would prefer that Israel doesn’t attack Hamas and leave them ruling Gaza and preparing for their next attack?

        What was genocidal about my comment? Implying that Hamas is responsible for this war? Or is it that I’m implying that Hamas can end it any minute?

        • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          What was genocidal about my comment? Implying that Hamas is responsible for this war? Or is it that I’m implying that Hamas can end it any minute?

          here is the genocidal part, you’re advocating for collective punishment, stating that because Hamas is resisting the occupation, the occupation indiscriminately killing civilians to the point of ethnically cleansing them is “heat” in the “kitchen” 🤢

          IDF didn’t choose Gaza to be the battlefield, Hamas chose it.

          If Hamas can’t stand the heat, maybe they should step out of the kitchen.

          Would you prefer they were not “ethnically cleansed” to shelters in the south? Would you prefer they die when the IDF attacks Hamas infrastructure and militants in the active warzones in the strip?

          You put ethnic cleansing in scare quotes for a reason I have to assume, would you care to elaborate because from the context it tells me you don’t believe that is a serious component of genocide?