Mainstream Media’s Capitol Riot Reporting Looked Convincing, But Was So Wrong.
“nothing to do with a crowd, wild with hatred, storming the building after being driven mad by President Trump”
“this is very strange, usually when there are political crowds at this location demonstrating, security is ubiquitous, but I can’t see any.”
“You cannot hope to bribe or twist the mainstream media journalist. But, seeing what they’ll do, unbribed, there’s no occasion to” (with apologies to Humbert Wolfe).
Mainstream media (CNN, network TV news, MSNBC, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post and their ilk) mis-reporting of the riot at the U.S. Capitol was a classic of its kind. It was a deliberately misleading and a mendacious attempt to boost Democrats and skewer Republicans and based on the left’s well proven mantra that if you get your accusations in first, however wrong, its desperately difficult to correct it and find the truth.
Anyone joining the story for the evening news would have seen the outrageous scenes of alleged Trump supporters (we await a definitive report to find out exactly who they were, a nicety ignored by House Democrats in their rush to impeach President Trump) trashing the centre of the sacred building, storming in through windows, causing mayhem and fear amongst staff and elected representatives. One rioter was shot dead, two policemen died. The commentary would have then made clear that this was a direct result of incitement to insurrection by Trump at a speech in Washington earlier in the day to somehow stop the Biden presidency and topple the new government. The New York Times, an egregious purveyor of blatant lies to promote Democrats, put it this way in a banner, front page headline – “TRUMP INCITES MOB”.
What actually happened is massively different. Trump made an aggressive speech, repeating much of what he’d said about how the election had been lost because of voting skullduggery by Democrats. At no point did he say anything remotely like “go storm the Capitol”. I refer doubters to remarks by Democrat and constitutional expert Alan Dershowitz. The demonstrators than marched on the Capitol, stood on the steps waving banners and chanting slogans. So far, so normal. While this was going on (I was watching on live TV) Fox News’ anchor Brett Baier said something like – “this is very strange, usually when there are political crowds at this location demonstrating, security is ubiquitous, but I can’t see any.”
Violence was there none. Security was there none. They just walked in.
Shortly afterwards cameras inside the Capitol building showed demonstrators wandering casually through, mainly keeping to the designated walkways, and gawking like tourists at the famous interior. Violence was there none. Security was there none. They just walked in. It wasn’t until much later that the violence started, and meanwhile some weird looking people had strayed into the main debating chambers, exchanging friendly banter with security, who didn’t seem too bothered. The point is that the horrendous scenes which came later had nothing to do with a crowd, wild with hatred, storming the building after being driven mad by President Trump. This was an interpretation put on the event by the mainstream media. On TV it had an obvious logic – Trump-Incitement-Mob-Devastation – unfortunately this had little to do with what actually happened. That didn’t trouble Democrats who immediately hit full stride with ludicrous accusations, but hardly anyone asked the obvious question – where was the security and who decided to keep it so thin? And who was the big loser in all this.
Trump was the big loser on two counts. Firstly, he was blamed for the riot, but second and more significantly, the debate which was scheduled would have allowed the likes of Senator Ted Cruz and his allies in the Senate and House to spell out their complaints about irregularities in the presidential elections, particularly in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Democrats had always insisted there was no fiddling at all. None. It was perfect. Republicans had seen much evidence to the contrary and wanted to put this on the record. They were denied that chance.
Impeachment trial will offer details
No doubt, if Trump’s impeachment case does make it to the Senate, and as I understand it, there is no choice, all of this detail will be aired. The House, led by the clearly loony and bitter Nancy Pelosi, fell down on the job in their haste to score points off the hated Trump, and its likely to fall in the Senate because the House failed to make a proper case. It was all angry and ignorant hot air. Many of us had the notion, as the violence escalated on January 6, that this surely wasn’t Republicans. The crowd must have been infiltrated by Antifa BLM. There’s no evidence for that yet. And for others, there is a tried and trusted way to solve what looks like an unfathomable puzzle – where’s the money? In other words, who stands to gain from the assault on the Capitol? Could a Democrat have had the foresight to stand off security, know this would prompt a riot and delay the debate on election tampering and lose the chance to voice incriminating evidence? That’s a bit of a stretch for me, not least because I’m sure Republicans will be assembling their report on this later in the year.
This indictment of the MSM has to include British newspapers, TV and radio talking heads too. They’ve all, across the political spectrum, parroted the conventional “wisdom” right through the Trump regime’s tenure. There was no reason why they had to go along with the U.S. media. If they had simply taken the trouble to watch news feeds of the events as they unfolded – Trump Speech, Crowd Goes To Capitol, Screams and Shouts As Usual, Wanders In Because There’s No Security, Has Friendly Banter With Officials, Then It Turns Nasty. But no. That would have taken a bit of effort and thought. It’s as though they were all assembled in one room, copying down the news feed from CNN, the most egregious of all the knee-jerk Trump hating U.S. media. Here, the anchors even on peak-time bulletins often appear like paid spokesman for the Democrats and openly ridiculed Trump. The Democrat party must be overjoyed. Just imagine how much public relations like this would cost, but they get it all for free from a group of journalists who must have at some stage in their careers, learned about fairness, balance and truth, but have clearly forgotten it.
There’s no need to bribe these turkeys.