It normalizes and gives equal weight to “both sides” of the opinion.
What if instead this is the headline:
Ashley Babbitt, domestic terrorist killed in the Capitol Riot, heralded as “martyr” by some on Right
Maybe a case can be made* that Babbitt (and others) who died that day are victims of a lie promulgated by a US president and far right media; or, maybe, labelling her a domestic terrorist goes too far (although I don’t know how else to characterize a person intent on harming elected officials - “Hang Mike Pence!” - and overturning a legitimate election.)
But CNN is choosing to paint Babbitt as an empathetic figure (the story in this case is as bad as the headline, told strictly from the pov of the family.)
As Marci Wheeler asks, why?
*This is actually true.
And I think the obvious answer is that there’s a vast audience of empathetic people who want to read those stories. These are the same people who voted for bipartisanship and want politicians to compromise for the good of the nation because that’s how democracy works. I get the frustration, but I am also 100% pro-empathy.
I imagine there were empathetic people who wanted to read stories about the hard lives of concentration camp guards, but I’d still deplore the kind of ‘journalism’ that wanted to cater to that audience.
It works when the political parties are rooted in reality; quite obviously, a major American political party is not (it can also be argued that while one party is entirely captured by the interests of the donor class, the other party is also, at least to some extent. CA, e.g., cannot pass climate change legislation despite a supermajority of Democrats. But that’s a different nut to crack.)
I’m not celebrating that Babbitt is dead; anyone who falls into the (white) rabbit hole of conspiratorial thinking is in many ways a victim - it literally tears apart families and ruins lives. At the same time, these people have agency. They choose to believe these things.
I don’t know what the solution is, but I’m also pretty sure normalizing them isn’t it.
There’s no doubt it’s a tricky line to draw. Especially in an environment where the outrage and negative attention directed towards these empathetic articles has become a whole 'nother monetized form of journalism unto itself.
Journalism needs to be fixed. Lots of things need to be fixed.
Reducing everything to “oh this is outrage only on the flip side of the coin” doesn’t solve anything.
We are talking about a judgement on the ethics of a person based on her actions on Jan 6th. There is no objective truth here.
It reports the fact that opinion is divided on an issue where objective truth doesn’t exist, because any judgement of her actions depends on ethical priors and world-views. Essentially, you’re saying that CNN should agree with you because you know you’re right.
I don’t really know what this means, sorry. There is no truth with respect to whether she was breaking the law or not?
The statements in question weren’t a judgement of whether she’d broken the law. I mean obviously.
“To some she’s a terrorist, to others she’s a martyr” are self-evidently moral judgements, not judgements of fact.
‘X is a terrorist’ cannot be a fact? How about ‘X is a thief’?
This is a really weird hill to die on.
I don’t really know how to respond to this without being offensive. This is beyond my ken to parse how anyone can think this way. “Hang Mike Pence!” is pretty definitively and objectively bad regardless of anyone’s priors.
I’m just gonna not respond to you in any future posts. You’re obviously free to believe whatever you want.
Timex
3544
CNN is reporting on peoples’ opinions, as opinions.
You’re suggesting that they shouldn’t report on peoples’ opinions, because those opinions are wrong. But that doesn’t make a lot of sense. If they were to do that, it wouldn’t make those people not hold those opinions… it would just make you ignorant of the reality of society’s overall opinions on things.
I think the issue is that CNN–as well as NYT and other venues–over and over and OVER report on the same people’s opinions. And yet they don’t showcase the other side’s opinions at all. It all about sympathy for the devil.
By which I mean clickbait.
Again, if CNN reports that some people think the world is flat, and some think the world is round, they aren’t actually providing any useful information at all. They’re just catering to the side that is demonstrably wrong in an effort to make some money off of that side.
Ashley Babbitt, domestic terrorist killed in the Capitol Riot, heralded as “martyr” by some on Right
The example headline I offered previously does just that*. The point is, it’s not up for debate that Babbitt is a martyr. She’s not, and there is no reasonable argument that can be made otherwise (the CNN story fwiw only included one side’s opinion.)
The reactionary right is using her death to do what they always do - it’s a grift to raise money. That’s actually the story here. Instead it’s another example that weighs “each side” equally and normalizes aberrant behavior. The capitol rioters wanted to overturn the results of the election, they wanted to bring harm to elected officials who didn’t support trump. It doesn’t matter what political persuasion one holds, whitewashing it is not ok.
*If domestic terrorist is too value-laden, then capitol rioter, or whatever language the FBI is using for these people.
Banzai
3548
I think the term you are looking for is ‘freedom fighter’
I mean, it worked for Reagan.
Timex
3549
CNN isn’t reporting that Babbitt was a martyr.
It’s reporting that some on the far right herald her as one.
And this is an objectively true statement of fact.
Banzai
3550
Sure, and anti-vax people believe covid vaccination makes you magnetic or some such crap. Doesn’t mean that CNN needs to report it. Doesn’t seem to be news to me, just clickbait crap that also sadly gives exposure to the crap. Remember all the free press trump got for his crazy crap and how that worked out so well for us all.
‘Some believe there are microchips embedded in the Covid vaccines, while others are skeptical.’ Totally true, and totally not journalism.
CraigM
3552
Exactly. It gives the appearance of equal credence to ideas that do not merit it. And in fact where presenting as such is actively harmful to civil society.
There is a version of that story that can be written to cover the perception while also retaining a connection to truth. But that was not the article and headline that was written.
