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.

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

      Itā€™s the orientation that enabling a genocide is somehow excusable when itā€™s ā€œyour guyā€, combined with the implicit understanding that something to do with foreign policy (itself a chauvinist term) shouldnā€™t affect how people vote when bad things at home are at stake. Like itā€™s sports or something.

      Iā€™m sensitive to this because I just donā€™t have the luxury of disregarding what happens to brown and brown-adjacent people as a result of US ā€œforeign policyā€. The bad situation weā€™re in is directly the result of decisions made (and being refused to get made) by our harm reduction president and his administration.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        Itā€™s the orientation that enabling a genocide is somehow excusable when itā€™s ā€œyour guyā€,

        No itā€™s not. Voting for someone doesnā€™t mean you think theyā€™re ok.

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

          Voting for someone doesnā€™t mean you think theyā€™re ok.

          I get that people are capable of doing that, but I donā€™t find the party which is completely unreachable on the genocide theyā€™re participating in as a credible alternative to the openly fascist party.