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.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    11 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. Itā€™s plainly listed in the modlog.

    Keep it up, get a temp. ban.

    • badaboomxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      So basically the other user can call me a genocide apologist without repercussionsā€¦ 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.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        Genocide apologist is a matter of opinion that can be argued against. Youā€™re an adult, use your words. Donā€™t bring insults into it and youā€™re golden.

        • badaboomxx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          11 months ago

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

          Donā€™t worry, I wonā€™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.