And here's the accompanying article, "Inside the Capitol Riot: An Exclusive Video Investigation/The Times analyzed thousands of videos from the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol Building to understand how it happened — and why. Here are some of the key findings."
The work of understanding Jan. 6 has been hard enough without this barrage of disinformation and, hoping to get to the bottom of the riot, The Times’s Visual Investigations team spent several months reviewing thousands of videos, many filmed by the rioters themselves and since deleted from social media. We filed motions to unseal police body-camera footage, scoured law enforcement radio communications, and synchronized and mapped the visual evidence.... We found evidence of members of extremist groups inciting others to riot and assault police officers. And we learned how Donald J. Trump’s own words resonated with the mob in real time as they staged the attack.
পোস্টগুলি
৫টি মন্তব্য:
Temujin writes:
I was confused for a minute. After I read it was a New York Times documentary about a Day of Rage, I thought it was about the day their editorial team went ballistic because the Times printed an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton that said the National Guard should be sent out to restore order in our cities.
Funny thing about Days of Rage. Like riots, there are acceptable Days of Rage and unacceptable Days of Rage, depending on who's doing the rioting/raging. BLM/Antifa = peaceful protests. Conservatives = Documentaries.
I remember the phrase "Days of Rage" having a positive interpretation in the NYT, so using this term for the January Sixthers is arguably respectful.
Assistant Village Idiot writes:
Great idea by the NYT. It will be a great compare-and-contrast exercise with their documentary about the riots of the preceding year.
I mean, I haven't seen that documentary myself, but I'm sure it must be there.
Lucien writes:
I’m left wondering what the purpose of and intended audience for this “documentary” is. Do NYT managers actually believe that any mass of Americans view them as honest brokers of information or fair reporters of facts? The film makes it clear that they had hundreds, if not thousands, of videos and other documents to cherry-pick to support their point of view — so why make their point of view so obvious that they could persuade nobody who wasn’t already on their side?
To a skeptical viewer, the film notably: includes nothing to support an inference that White supremacy/nationalism had anything to do with the riot; lacks any timeline comparing when violence commenced with anything Trump said; doesn’t even ask why Babbitt was shot, or by whom; doesn’t mention the false Sicknick narrative; and doesn’t discuss why nothing similar occurred on any subsequent days.
If the NYT understood that as a partisan rag, it needs to meticulously support any claims it makes favoring Democrats or disparaging Republicans, it might do a better and more persuasive job.
Tom writes:
This is what happens when people don’t believe they got their day in court. Every lawsuit the Trump campaign filed was dismissed by judges on technical grounds (e.g., lack of standing, etc.). There was never an evidentiary hearing where evidence of fraud was presented in any court. Couple that to the evidence that was presented to state legislatures and it very much appeared that the courts had abdicated responsibility to 80m American voters. Some of those voters were angry enough to go to DC. This anger and frustration fueled what happened at the capital.
The preceding summer of rage that followed the George Floyd death also fueled what happened at the capitol and I suppose we should be relieved the capitol rioters didn’t do what the summer rioters did.. smash and torch everything. (I’m one of those folks who was taught to treat the janitor and the CEO with the same level of respect. Well, I also believe someone’s small business is at least as valuable as the capitol building.)
Finally, while I understand the emotions of anger and frustration, the capitol riot was a stupid, strategic blunder by Trump supporters. This event was instantly labeled an “insurrection” and “threat to democracy,” which is difficult to understand since the Capitol Police waved people into the building and the rioters were not armed. Conservatives as a voting block tend to value loyalty and fear disorder and the Trump supporters sowed disorder on January 6th.
Carol writes:
"While watching TV on 1-6-2021, after hearing ‘former’ telling the group to “fight like hell”, “I will lead you to the Capitol”, then when the group began to head to the Capitol, when I saw what looked like a group of Americans hurting other Americans, They became Traitors. No doubt in my mind if they had found anyone in the Capitol, they would be dead. Vice President Pence would have been hung from the gallows. I had to turn it off. My stomach was upset, my head hurt, I became dizzy. I thought of my dad he was a retired Sgt. of 30 years in the Army and for a very brief, horrible moment, I was glad he was dead. This violence toward Our Democracy would have deeply hurt him. Because of the 40 minute video by the NYT, CNBC’s report, former Director of the FBI, who seem to have the same feelings watching the takeover on 1-6-2021 as I did, encouraged every American to watch the video. And so I did. My heart, mind, and soul are so heavy. 1-6-202I, I experienced shock. 6-30-21, I now am grieving and feeling all the pain that comes with such deep grief. I do thank the NYT on a great video showing the steps that took place leading to the assault on our Democracy and the threat that’s still here."
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন