If only we could have really public discussions about January 1…

This article from Michael Balsamo and Colleen Long would be a great study in propaganda and how the news media constructs a narrative that’s true-ish for political ends.  It wraps facts in the perspective of the writers.

A U.S. Capitol Police officer has been indicted on obstruction of justice charges after prosecutors say he helped to hide evidence of a rioter’s involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

In this case “helped to hide evidence” means acknowledging to somebody that leaving pictures online of being in the Capitol could get one arrested.  We don’t know the extent of the person’s involvement, what the relationship with the officer was… or much of anything.  Yet, mentioning the widely reported investigation of social media is somehow transformed into the same offense as hiding a bloody murder weapon.

This affects the description of January 1, too:

… many of his colleagues were brutally beaten in the insurrection. The riot left dozens of police officers bloodied and bruised as the crowd of pro-Trump rioters, some armed with pipes, bats and bear spray, charged into the Capitol, quickly overrunning the overwhelmed police force.

One officer was beaten and shocked with a stun gun repeatedly until he had a heart attack; another was foaming at the mouth and screaming for help as rioters crushed him between two doors and bashed him in the head with his own weapon.

Research each fact claimed in those paragraphs, and you’ll find they’re all at least arguably true, in themselves.  Yes, somebody had bear spray but never used it, for example.  An officer was shocked and at some point had a mild heart attack, but I can’t find an article substantiating the “repeatedly” or the direct link of the shock with the heart attack.

The point is, you really can’t know where the truth ends and the propaganda begins.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.