{UAH} HOW THE MEDIA HELPED BUILD THE EVENTS IN THE CAPITAL

How the media helped bring about recent events in the Capitol

by Peter Wallison January 15, 2021 01:43 AM

 

The shocking events at the Capitol last week were the culmination of four years of antagonism between the mainstream media and President Trump. From the moment Trump took office, the television and print media, with a few exceptions, seemed intent on destroying his presidency. Whatever its genesis, this was an unprecedented violation of the norms of press objectivity. In addition, the media’s failure to treat seriously the rioting and burning in numerous cities this past summer could well have been seen by Trump’s partisans as a justification or precedent for the mayhem at the Capitol. And then there was the media’s cover-up of the Hunter Biden story until after the election.

At the outset of the Trump administration, the media were wide open to the false charge that Trump was an agent of Vladimir Putin and Russia — in other words, that he was a traitor to the country he was just elected to lead. The evidence for this shocking charge was weak at best, but most of the major media carried anonymously sourced stories about “evidence” that were later were proven false.

In addition, after George Floyd’s death in police custody, riots broke out in many U.S. cities. These resulted in enormous losses to private individuals and great danger to members of law enforcement. In some cases, there were attacks on courthouses and police stations that required governors and mayors to call in the National Guard. The media coverage minimized and routinized these violent events by calling them “protests” and describing them as “mostly peaceful,” even as buildings burned in the background.

None of this excuses what Trump did in encouraging his partisans to proceed to the Capitol after his speech. He told them that he’d won in a landslide and that the election had been stolen. These were false statements, but by the time they were uttered, the Trump base had already concluded that the media’s reporting on Trump was almost uniformly false. This is what happens when the media as a whole becomes part of the political opposition. They lose the credibility essential to their role in a democratic society.

Nevertheless, Trump’s false statements to 100,000 or more fervent supporters, believing they were on a mission to rescue something as important as a stolen presidential election, was a prescription for the disaster it became. For this, Trump has justly paid an enormous price, facing an impeachment that will make his presidency a historic example of lawlessness.

The media’s failure to report objectively on the views of Trump’s partisans also contributed to the riot at the Capitol. To the extent that the dominant culture takes notice of their lifestyles and loyalties, the mostly working-class people who make up Trump’s base are described by the media as racist or hateful. For example, the New York Times report on the rally noted: “At Mr. Trump’s rallies, his supporters set up open-air markets of hate and conspiracy, selling Confederate flags and T-shirts that mock his opponents and the media.”

However, when interviewed, the most common complaint of Trump’s partisans is simply that “nobody listens to us.” Sandy Smith, who attended the Washington rally, wrote on maganewswire.com, “We feel disenfranchised and we wanted our voices to be heard … I don’t support violence in any way. But we need to make the DC establishment listen!”

Again, an objective media during the four years of the Trump presidency, reporting fairly on the actions of Trump and the views of his base, would have reduced the size and fervor of the crowd who came at their own expense to hear and support the president.

But the media did much more to earn the anger of Trump’s supporters than by ignoring them. As the 2020 presidential campaign drew to a close, the New York Post ran a story that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, had been selling access to his father around the world. Biden denied that he knew anything about his son’s activities, but evidence was soon developed that the elder Biden was lying about his knowledge and may have profited from this corrupt arrangement.

As soon as the Post article appeared, the media circled the wagons around the elder Biden, refusing to cover or investigate the story. Media outlets quoted former members of the intelligence community, many of whom had stoked the collusion hoax, that the Post story, which came from Hunter’s own laptop, had been planted by Russian operatives. Twitter and Facebook locked the accounts of the New York Post and would not allow any posting on the subject by their subscribers. This media boycott successfully shut down further inquiry until after the election and may have saved Biden from defeat.

After the election, the Department of Justice revealed that it was investigating the activities of Hunter Biden.

This was more than simply the media putting its thumb on the scale; it was wielding its power as that is employed in totalitarian systems to shut out opposition. It violated the free speech ethos that most Americans believe in and media companies claim as their right. It may have changed the outcome of a presidential election.

To the horror of the elites, Trump has called the media “the enemy of the people.” He was justifiably criticized for that overstatement, but who can deny that covering up President-elect Biden’s possible corruption before the election was anything but that?

Peter J. Wallison is a senior fellow emeritus at AEI.

EM         -> { Trump for 2020 }

On the 49^th Parallel          

                 Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in anarchy"
                    Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni katika machafuko"