Raynine
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2023
- 1,088
- 1,663
- 1,938
Analysis:
One group of people sees an event that looks a certain way, but another group of people sees the same event and recognizes the event in an opposite way. Both groups of people are told that protesting is allowed in a democracy. But one group is told that if the other group protests it is an insurrection, and protesters should be identified, investigated and possibly sent to prison. The group that supports the insurrection theory is told that if they protest it is in the best interests of democracy. The two camps are divided, separated, and treated differently even though they are both parts of what is advertised as a democracy. How can one group protesting be supporting democracy while the other is treated as a threat to democracy even though they are both exercising the right to protest?
This paradox is seen by a lot of people. What makes it dangerous is that established legacy media does not report it that way. In a true democracy, media should remain neutral and just report events, but here media is tribalized and chooses sides more as public relations than a dispassionate arbiter. This is dangerous because in a democracy the press must hold power accountable to the people. It is also dangerous because when two groups are split a peaceful consensus is unlikely if one group is handed control of the narrative by a media friendly to them. The media is playing a dangerous game by legitimizing one side while marginalizing the other. The media must observe and report, not actively recruit itself to one side of the conflict.
Due to recent election outcomes, it appears that the disfavored group holds a sway. But because the narrative dispersed to the media-favored group is that they are on the right side, it could encourage violence out of what extreme factions see as a desperate attempt to save democracy. Some aspects of the favored group may legitimize their own insurrection as the right thing to do in the face of election defeat.
Bringing the country together to save the system is where the narrative should be headed because when one side loses hope civil war is not off the table or at least a moral equivalent of some states that just refuse to comply with federal authority. Brother against brother did not work before and it will not work now.
The stakes are high.
One group of people sees an event that looks a certain way, but another group of people sees the same event and recognizes the event in an opposite way. Both groups of people are told that protesting is allowed in a democracy. But one group is told that if the other group protests it is an insurrection, and protesters should be identified, investigated and possibly sent to prison. The group that supports the insurrection theory is told that if they protest it is in the best interests of democracy. The two camps are divided, separated, and treated differently even though they are both parts of what is advertised as a democracy. How can one group protesting be supporting democracy while the other is treated as a threat to democracy even though they are both exercising the right to protest?
This paradox is seen by a lot of people. What makes it dangerous is that established legacy media does not report it that way. In a true democracy, media should remain neutral and just report events, but here media is tribalized and chooses sides more as public relations than a dispassionate arbiter. This is dangerous because in a democracy the press must hold power accountable to the people. It is also dangerous because when two groups are split a peaceful consensus is unlikely if one group is handed control of the narrative by a media friendly to them. The media is playing a dangerous game by legitimizing one side while marginalizing the other. The media must observe and report, not actively recruit itself to one side of the conflict.
Due to recent election outcomes, it appears that the disfavored group holds a sway. But because the narrative dispersed to the media-favored group is that they are on the right side, it could encourage violence out of what extreme factions see as a desperate attempt to save democracy. Some aspects of the favored group may legitimize their own insurrection as the right thing to do in the face of election defeat.
Bringing the country together to save the system is where the narrative should be headed because when one side loses hope civil war is not off the table or at least a moral equivalent of some states that just refuse to comply with federal authority. Brother against brother did not work before and it will not work now.
The stakes are high.
Last edited:
