- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Just because Republicans choose unreality doesnāt 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, āwill 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 āstolenā 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 mediaās 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 doesnāt allow for the reality the rest of us inhabit. Trumpās supporters believe their leaderās reality and not, say, the reality the rest of us see with our eyes. As Trump once told a crowd: āDonāt believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. What youāre seeing and what youāre reading is not whatās happening.ā
Journalists may be well-intentioned in trying to be āobjective,ā or theyāre simply afraid of being labeled partisan. Either way, coverage of January 6 that gives equal weight to both sidesāone based in reality, one notāis helping pave the road for authoritarianism.
Itās actually not, they track it. Itās important to know voter sentiment so the competent members of Congress actually keep track of the issues people write about and their positions on them. In terns of response, Iām not sure if you know how many people an average Congressmember has and how much mail they get, but if everyone including the Congressmember spent all day individually responding to every letter they got (most of which are form complaints), they would get even less done. The form response is (again, if the member is at all competent) usually slightly modified from a form response because, frankly, why would you have a different response to the same question every time? The response reads all political because it has to, theyāre writing for a broad audience and they donāt know you.
They probably are listening to the people who write them, who tend to skew older and have more time on their hands to do so, so are likely more conservative or status quo. There are issues the Dems will shift on if they see thatās where the wind is blowing. Also, if you have a specific local issue, donāt write to DC, write to the local office. They actually have people dedicated to helping with state and local concerns.