- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
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.
deleted by creator
I don’t know how the US could change it’s voting system. It’s so carved into the national identity with the constitution. It’s a big change. I see us in the UK more likely to change our voting system before the US.
deleted by creator
It’s actually not, they track it. It’s 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, I’m 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, they’re writing for a broad audience and they don’t 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 that’s where the wind is blowing. Also, if you have a specific local issue, don’t write to DC, write to the local office. They actually have people dedicated to helping with state and local concerns.