The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: january 6th
Steve Bannon

Bannon And January 6 Organizer Now Pushing Anti-Immigrant Rallies

Podcaster and former Trump strategist Steve Bannon pushed the white supremacist “great replacement” conspiracy theory while hosting Tea Party Patriots leader Jenny Beth Martin, who was on to promote an anti-immigrant rally in Georgia.

Martin co-founded the Tea Party Patriots, a conservative grassroots organization formed in 2009 that has spread conspiracy theories and claims about alleged voter fraud in the 2020 election. The group sponsored a pre-insurrection rally in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021.

During the March 1 interview, Martin promoted a rally calling for “an end to the invasion on our border” and centers around the recent death of student Laken Riley. The suspect in Riley’s death is an undocumented person from Venezuela, a fact right-wing media have used to whip up hysteria about so-called “migrant crime.”

“We’re going to deport 10 million illegal alien invaders,” Bannon said. “They’re not going to sit here and continue to perpetrate crime on our cities, taking away health care, taking away the little education that is happening in the cities for these kids today.”

Later in the interview, Bannon invoked the white supremacist “great replacement” conspiracy theory, which asserts that migrants will replace white people in America and vote for Democrats. This conspiracy theory has previously motivated mass shootings against minority communities.

“This whole thing is to break the minority communities on wages, to destroy their schools, their education. They want to replace them,” Bannon said. “They want to replace the existing African American and Hispanic population in this country because, guess what, they understand they’re turning right.” While Bannon describes this imaginary replacement of Americans specifically as a threat to Black and Hispanic communities, his career laundering extreme racism into the mainstream belies this cheap slight of hand.

This interview continues Bannon’s extreme anti-immigrant crusade. Given Bannon’s prominence in the MAGA media universe, his show sometimes functions as a platform for message testing on issues that Trump-aligned figures hope to capitalize on ahead of the 2024 election.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

"Stay Peaceful": The Tweet Trump Never Wrote On January 6

"Stay Peaceful": The Tweet Trump Never Wrote On January 6

On Sunday, ABC News reported on alleged statements from Donald Trump staffers forced to testify to special counsel Jack Smith about events on January 6, 2021. Included was former deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, who continues to work for Trump as a paid adviser to his election campaign. Those statements shred any idea that Trump did anything other than support the insurgency.

The result of testimony by Scavino and others who were present in the White House as the Trumpist mob stormed the Capitol doesn’t just confirm what was already known—that Trump sat and watched images of the insurrection without taking action—it undercuts a critical item that supporters have been using in an effort to distance Trump from assaults on police and threats against members of Congress.

A tweet including the phrase “stay peaceful,” which appeared on Trump’s Twitter account almost half an hour after the pro-Trump forces smashed through the windows of the Capitol, was not written by Trump. Instead, it was both written and posted by Scavino while Trump sat cheering on the attack.

The “stay peaceful” part of the tweet was always a lie. The message appeared over an hour after police on the scene first reported injuries and called for backup as the Trump mob forced them to retreat to the Capitol steps and broke through line after line. It was far too late for Trump’s supporters to stay peaceful.

The brief tweet seems to be urging Trump supporters to at least halt their assaults on the police, though it notably doesn’t call for them to withdraw from the Capitol.

But even this small gesture turns out to be a lie. According to the testimony reported by ABC, the tweet came as Trump was sitting in the White House dining room “with his arms folded and his eyes locked on the TV,” angrily cheering on the insurgents. After 20 minutes of trying to get Trump to send some kind of message to calm the situation, Scavino and other aides stepped out of the room.

When they did, Trump pulled out his phone and posted to Twitter.

This tweet spurring the insurgents on was authentically written and posted by Trump.

After seeing this message, Scavino and others returned to the dining room and told Trump this wasn’t what was needed to resolve the situation. “But it’s true,” said Trump. When he was told that Pence had to be rushed to a secure location, Trump responded, "So what?"

It was only after this, with pro-Trump insurgents already inside the Capitol and assaults on police continuing, that Scavino—who also had access to Trump’s Twitter account—wrote and published the “stay peaceful” tweet. Scavino reportedly showed the tweet to Trump before it was posted and was given permission to send it.

During the afternoon, at least six of Trump’s closest assistants urged him to say something to end the situation. Trump either ignored them or outright refused. He did the same when Ivanka reportedly appeared to beg him to end the insurrection.

Instead, Trump just kept watching Fox News coverage. When he did speak, it was to justify the assault or to continue false claims that he had won the election. As images of the rampage inside the Capitol were shown, Trump reportedly said only, “This is what happens when they try to steal an election.”

Finally, almost two hours after the Scavino tweet, Jared Kushner talked Trump into sending a video that eventually helped to end the event. But even then, that brief video informed the insurgents that they were “very special,” declared that Trump loved them, and insisted that “this was a fraudulent election.” It wasn’t a warning to the insurgents. It was a pat on the head.

The new elements of this story show that Smith’s investigation has only clarified and reinforced the worst of what was already known about Trump’s actions—and inactions—on Jan. 6. Trump wasn’t ignorant of what was happening at the Capitol, he was fixated on those events, watching every minute unfold. He didn’t just fail to act, he refused to act in the face of repeated requests from his closest advisers, members of Congress, and his daughter. Scavino only agreed to provide this testimony to Smith’s office after losing a battle over a federal subpoena.

The single action of the afternoon that was seen by some as exculpatory wasn’t written or posted by Trump. Instead, Trump was directly responsible only for the tweet that encouraged his followers to take out their wrath on Pence.

Trump had better hope his pressure tactics against his Supreme Court appointees are effective. That could be his only chance.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Three Years Later, Republicans Keep Gaslighting Themselves

Three Years Later, Republicans Keep Gaslighting Themselves

Three years after the spectacle of rioters storming the Capitol played out on television screens across America, the events of January 6 are now highly open to interpretation depending on one's partisan lean.

For Democrats, it's generally clear that a mass of MAGA supporters, provoked by Donald Trump's lies about a stolen election, launched a violent attack on the Capitol in an effort to interrupt certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power. That, of course, is what happened, as has been proven by the sweeping January 6 congressional investigation and hundreds of convictions.

Republicans, who have had to gaslight their way to an acceptable narrative, appear to believe some combination of the following fabrications: 1) the Jan. 6 violence was justified because Joe Biden's victory was illegitimate (i.e. Democrats stole the election); 2) Jan. 6 was mostly a peaceful protest (a narrative driven by right-wing talker Tucker Carlson, among others); and 3) the Jan. 6 violence was organized and instigated by FBI plants.

Since the outset of his 2024 campaign, Trump has openly embraced the MAGA rioters, launching his latest presidential bid in Waco, Texas, a city synonymous with extremist lore. The event kicked off with a variation of the national anthem sung by Jan. 6 convicts—or "hostages," as Trump prefers to call them. Trump has pledged to pardon some or possibly even all of those involved in the January 6 insurrection if he is elected president in November.

"Trump heading into the 2024 election has decided to go all in as being the pro-January 6 candidate," counterterrorism expert and January 6 investigator Tom Joscelyn told NPR. "He's gone full steam ahead in praising and in his own way endorsing the January 6 rioters and extremists who attacked the Capitol."

Yet outside of Democrats and pro-Trump Republicans, many Americans aren't as settled about what took place on January 6 and why. A sizable swath, in fact, would simply rather move past the Capitol attack as a bygone unpleasantry.

But as President Biden wages his reelection campaign on the threat that Trump and MAGA Republicans pose to American democracy, it's incumbent on Democrats and pro-democracy voters to relay a clear and direct narrative about what unfolded on Jan. 6 and who was responsible for the worst homegrown attack ever launched on the U.S. seat of government.

To that end, the progressive consortium Navigator Research has assembled a road map for how to discuss the Jan. 6 riot in ways that resonate broadly with voters.

Here are the nonpartisan explanations of the day that resonated with broad segments of the electorate as being most true and most concerning, according to Navigator:

  • More than 2,000 rioters ultimately broke into the Capitol, many of whom vandalized and looted parts of the building (69 percent true, 72 percent concerning).
  • Approximately 140 police officers were assaulted by rioters (64 percent true, 71 percent concerning).
  • Five people died as a result of the events on January 6, including Capitol police officers (60 percent true, 75 percent concerning).
  • More than 1,000 people have been arrested for their actions on January 6 (62 percent true, 66 percent concerning).

Navigator polling shows the Republican Party is currently viewed as more prone to political violence than the Democratic Party, but only by 11 points (47 percent to 36 percent). And nearly one in five voters remains unsure about which party is more prone to political violence.

With that in mind, Navigator fleshed out how to extend culpability for the January 6 assault to congressional Republicans by raising concerns about their ongoing efforts to promote political violence. The group found that Americans' top concerns with GOP conduct include that:

  • Congressional Republicans continue to allow the white supremacist factions present at the January 6th attack to play a dominant role in deciding the direction of the Republican Party (71% concerning, including 71% of independents).
  • Congressional Republicans voted against investigating basic facts about what happened at the attack at the Capitol building on January 6th (71% concerning, including 70% of independents).
  • Some Republican members assisted or encouraged the organizers of the attack on January 6th (70% concerning, including 73% of independents).

The 2024 presidential election is shaping up to be a rematch between the pro-democracy forces who elected Biden in 2020 and the pro-Trump forces who sought to overturn the will of the people.

Trump has left no doubt about his allegiance to the people who sought to stage an insurrection on Jan. 6 at his behest and congressional Republicans have left no doubt about their allegiance and submission to Trump as the party’s standard-bearer.

That puts the preservation of democracy, January 6, and the broader matter of right-wing violence directly on the ballot this November. So it's worth all of us making an effort to have one or two fast facts at the ready when our independent-minded friends and neighbors question the severity of the deadly January 6 riot. Because if Trump wins, he and his allies will rewrite history—and alter the course of American democracy.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

How Legacy Media Keep Failing In Their Coverage Of Donald Trump

How Legacy Media Keep Failing In Their Coverage Of Donald Trump

The failures of legacy news outlets paved Donald Trump’s path to the presidency in 2016.

Obsessive, spectacle-minded coverage from major broadcast and cable networks and print and digital publications helped push the real estate mogul and reality TV star ahead of the pack during the Republican primary, as their top executives touted the resulting boom in ratings and profits.

And while critical scrutiny of Trump’s bigotry and authoritarianism increased during the general election campaign, outlets remained wedded to a “both sides” vision of journalism which resulted in disproportionate coverage of relatively minor scandals involving Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton — particularly in the days just before the election.

The result was a narrow Trump victory, followed by four years of chaos, corruption, cruelty, conspiracy theories, mass death, proto-fascism, election subversion, and, ultimately, insurrection.

The twice-impeached, four-times-indicted former president is now seeking a return to office, with a stated goal of using the federal government to exact “retribution.” He has openly toyed with the “termination” of the Constitution’s limits on presidential power, promised to unleash the FBI and Justice Department on his enemies, and said he would act as a “dictator,” albeit only on “day one” of his term.

But for much of this year, the legacy news outlets that helped usher Trump to power were complacent. Nakedly authoritarian comments from the would-be president drew relatively muted coverage, while his potentially disastrous policy proposals were often ignored. If the press’s over-coverage aided Trump’s previous ascendance, this time around he has benefited from its relative neglect.

Media Matters is naming the legacy media our Misinformer of the Year for 2023.

The press plays an essential agenda-setting role in American politics. Decisions made by news executives, editors, TV newscasters and bookers, reporters, and pundits determine which issues the public sees, reads, and hears about, and the tone with which those topics are covered.

Media Matters produced a series of studies this year assessing the news coverage of Trump by the nation’s five largest newspapers by circulation (the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post); the Big Three broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC); and the three major cable news networks (CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News). While the news media have become increasingly fragmented, those outlets feature relatively large audiences and both retain an outsized influence on and reflect broader trends in the industry.

Our studies found that while many individual journalists at those networks and publications produced vital reporting on Trump’s actions and plans, the overall coverage of the outlets often did not meet the moment.

Data: Major news outlets keep downplaying Trump’s incendiary remarks and hazardous policies

Trump’s involvement in the January 6 insurrection, in which his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an effort to subvert the results of the 2020 election, is perhaps the single most salient aspect of his political career.

But after Trump launched his new campaign with two January rallies, 77 percent of cable segments, 62 percent of top newspaper articles, and all broadcast news segments about the campaign failed to mention that role.

After President Joe Biden announced his reelection bid in April, we found that media coverage would often highlight his age but not Trump's, even though the former president is only three years younger.

Reviewing five months of coverage in major newspapers, we found that of all the articles that mentioned the age of either candidate, all five papers mentioned Biden’s age a great deal more.

We further determined that cable news mentioned Biden’s age four times as often as Trump’s in a four-day period in September beginning with the release of a poll that included questions about both candidates’ ages and health.

Major outlets not only provided comparatively little coverage of Trump’s age, but they also downplayed a series of verbal gaffes and incoherent statements he made. In September and October, Trump mixed up the authoritarian leaders of Hungary and Turkey; confused his former Republican opponent Jeb Bush and Jeb’s brother, former President George W. Bush; mixed up a number of his Democratic opponents with former President Barack Obama; and made a garbled statement accusing Biden of leading the country into “World War II.”

None of those remarks were covered on broadcast news, and they received relatively light coverage from the cable networks.

We also found that Trump received relatively lax coverage for a series of unhinged, extremist comments he made over the last four months of the year.

When the former president and likely Republican nominee suggested that Gen. Mark Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, deserved to be executed for his criticism of Trump, the comments were ignored by the Big Three broadcast networks and Fox, and they received 21 and 41 minutes of coverage, respectively, from CNN and MSNBC.

We subsequently reviewed coverage after Trump complimented the terrorist group Hezbollah as “very smart”; accused migrants of “poisoning the blood of our country”; said that “liberal Jews” are voting “to destroy America”; and called for “ideological screening” of immigrants and the barring of those who don’t like “our religion.”

Only the Hezbollah remark received more than 12 minutes of coverage from a cable news network or any broadcast coverage at all (just over 1 minute of coverage combined across ABC and NBC).

Likewise, in November Trump repeatedly pledged to “root out” his political opponents, who he claimed “live like vermin within the confines of our country” and want to “destroy America,” drawing comparisons from experts on authoritarianism to the rhetoric of genocidal fascist dictators.

But the remarks were largely ignored, drawing significantly less coverage from major outlets than the outlets gave Clinton’s description of some Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables” in 2016.

The legacy press did no better in covering some of Trump’s most consequential policy ideas this year.

Trump announced in August that he plans to impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods, the revenue from which his campaign team said would go toward tax cuts slanted toward the rich. Experts decried the tariff plan as “a disaster for the U.S. economy” that would raise prices for American consumers, particularly the poor and middle class, and potentially trigger “global economic chaos.”

But Trump’s tariff proposal received vanishingly little television coverage over the following month. ABC, CBS, and NBC did not cover it on their national morning, evening, or Sunday political talk shows. CNN and MSNBC each provided less than 1 minute of coverage, within a single segment, and neither addressed the potential impact for Americans, while Fox ignored the plan.

In November, Trump said that if he is elected he wants to “terminate” the Affordable Care Act, which provides health coverage to 35 million Americans and protects the coverage of many more with preexisting conditions. We found that the broadcast networks totally ignored Trump’s threat. While the cable news networks covered Trump’s threat in 35 segments, they largely ignored its potential consequences for the public.

2024 will push political journalism to the breaking point

There were signs of improvement as the year came to a close. The New York Times produced major investigations on the Trump team's radical, authoritarian plans for if he returns to power, while The Atlantic devoted an entire issue to analyzing what will occur “If Trump Wins.” Each set the agenda for the rest of the press, drawing substantial secondary coverage.

The legacy press also might be turning a corner on coverage of Trump’s extremist rhetoric. When he first accused migrants of “poisoning the blood of our country” in a September speech, ABC, CBS, and NBC all ignored the comment, while CNN, Fox, and MSNBC combined to give it only 22 minutes of coverage over two weeks. But when he repeated the vile remark in December, the same outlets gave it the attention it deserved: Each broadcast network ran at least 3 segments on the comment, and the cables combined for more than 11 times as much airtime (245 minutes) over the course of only four days.

It's possible that as the presidential primaries come to a close, reporting focusing on “not the odds, but the stakes” will become more of the norm rather than the exception.

But the job of the political press will become only more difficult over the next year. Republicans and right-wing media will pressure journalists to repeat the mistakes they made during Trump’s first general election campaign. They have spent years assembling a series of debunked conspiracy theories and bad-faith innuendoes related to the business interests of Biden’s son, Hunter, and next year they plan to leverage those phony grievances to impeach the president. Republicans recognize that they lack actual incriminating evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden — but they know that if they can stir up a scandal, they can give legacy news outlets something to talk about besides Trump’s alleged criminality.

Fox News host Jesse Watters laid out the plan in August.

“Without the impeachment, you have back-to-back-to-back-to-back Trump trials,” he explained. “The media’s not going to cover anything else. Biden’s going to hide, and Trump is going to be criminalized on TV. But if Republicans time this right and follow the evidence where it leads, impeachment is going to run counter to the Trump trials next year.”

Watters knows that such a plan could work on journalists because a similar approach succeeded in 2016. A return to that form would put the American experiment in democracy — and the free press itself — in jeopardy.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.