Just because Republicans choose unreality doesnā€™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, ā€œwill be wild,ā€ 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 ā€œstolenā€ 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 mediaā€™s inability to cover Trumpism as the threat to democracy that it very much is.

ā€¦

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 doesnā€™t allow for the reality the rest of us inhabit. Trumpā€™s supporters believe their leaderā€™s reality and not, say, the reality the rest of us see with our eyes. As Trump once told a crowd: ā€œDonā€™t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. What youā€™re seeing and what youā€™re reading is not whatā€™s happening.ā€

Journalists may be well-intentioned in trying to be ā€œobjective,ā€ or theyā€™re simply afraid of being labeled partisan. Either way, coverage of January 6 that gives equal weight to both sidesā€”one based in reality, one notā€”is helping pave the road for authoritarianism.

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

    However, I assume the calculation between voters whoā€™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.

    • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      6 months ago

      Whatā€™s charitable about pointing out how theyā€™re likely ignoring lives based on polling?

      Your sounding like more and more of a shill as you go on.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        If someone supports genocide, you may want to try to imagine some plausible excuse to make that ok.

        But genocide is inexcusable, and there is no reason to bend over backwards to give its supporters the benefit of the doubt.

        Youā€™re apologizing for genocide supporters and lobbing accusations at people who oppose genocide.

        I have never advocated for withholding votes, nor have I ever advocated for voting for anyone but Biden since he won the nomination in 2020. My consistent position has been that Biden should not be supporting genocide.

        There is no good or compelling reason to support genocide.