Jan. 6 coverage highlights need for bridge-building PJ
The anniversary of the January 6th attack on the U.S. capitol is yet another sad reminder of the alternative media universes inhabited by Americans on either side of the political divide—and of the need for peace journalism that rejects polarization and seeks to build bridges instead.

A quick perusal of news websites on the left (New York Times, CNN) shows stories that highlight Pres. Biden’s comments today about Trump “holding a dagger at the throat of democracy.” On CNN, another headline discusses “7 people who believed the big lie.” On MSNBC, a headline screams about how the “Jan. 6 insurrection was a pitiful performance of white victimhood.” Another story talks about how it’s “time to look past the mob and punish the liars who pushed them to the capitol.”

On Foxnews.com, their banner interestingly features a large photo of Vice President Kamala Harris (not Biden) along with the headline about how she compared 1/6 to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 as “infamous dates that will be remembered.” Under the large banner, one featured story was headlined, “'My training kicked in': Why one GOP congressman ran toward the danger when Capitol riot erupted.” Breitbart.com goes even further. Their lead stories are titled, “Democrat day of hysteria” and “Kamala unhinged.” The “hysteria” story smeared Harris as someone “who participated in a Black Lives Matter protest outside the White House in May 2020 just hours after rioters attacked police around the building, injuring dozens, assaulting journalists, and forcing the evacuation of the president into a bunker.” On the far right, Infowars.com completely ignores the 1/6 anniversary, instead presenting stories about Ted Cruz “stabbing conservatives in the back” and about a CNN video where a medical ethicist “calls for denying health insurance to ‘unvaccinated jerks.’”

Given the well-documented media bubbles inhabited by partisans on both sides of the political divide, it’s no wonder that so many Americans have distorted views of Jan. 6.  A December AP-NORC poll found that 29 percent of Republicans rated the events of Jan. 6 either “not very violent” or “not violent at all,” despite hours of video evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, an American Enterprise Institute Survey Center on American Life poll found that nearly 40 percent of Republicans agreed that “if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions.” (New York Times). 

As peace journalists, it’s incumbent on us to continue debunking the big lie, even as we admit that a certain percentage of the population is unreachable. Certainly, the embrace of violence is particularly alarming. One definition of peace journalism (Lynch/McGoldrick) talks about how PJ gives society a chance to consider non-violent responses to conflict. We need to redouble our efforts in this regard, and educate our audiences about the folly of violence while offering up substantive discussions of possible solutions.

On Twitter yesterday, political scientist and FiveThirtyEight contributor Lee Drutman wrote, “Dear journalists/editors: If you are writing about January 6, please consider offering some hope to escape our current crisis. An ‘everything-is-f-ed’ conclusion is demobilizing and self-reinforcing. If we are to escape this moment, we need a vision of a brighter future.”

Agreed. It’s our responsibility as peace journalists to lead discussions about this “brighter future” and how society can begin to build bridges between our polarized masses.