January 6 hearings vying for your attention

- Advertisement -


Monitor a weekly column dedicated to everything that happens in the WIRED world of culture, from movies to memes, from TV to Twitter.

- Advertisement -

Last night, a large number of Americans tuned in for the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol to hold a live televised hearing. Glossy, he stated facts about the uprising that even those who strictly followed history did not know. It aired on no fewer than six networks (notably non-Fox News) and became instant fodder for late-night TV broadcasts. (The Late Show with Stephen Colbert ether special live broadcast after listening.) However, as things unfolded, I couldn’t stop thinking about what people prefer to watch in this age of too many screens.

Yes, people followed the actions of the committee on January 6 for almost 10 months. On Twitter, on cable, through news sites. But Thursday night’s broadcast seemed different. The committee brought in a former ABC news chief to organize the hearing and make it less like a live C-SPAN broadcast. They aspire according to Maryland Representative Jamie Ruskinto “tell the story of a conspiracy to cancel the 2020 presidential election and block the transfer of power” from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. In terms of television policy, this is on par with Watergate hearings.

In other words, a must-see TV. This is what the committee wanted to give their findings. to the court of public opinion. In times of disinformation, the goal is to teach the electorate to see clearly what has happened to democracy in the US. They are certainly not all of them. During the hearing, Fox aired The Tucker Carlson Show without commercials. And in the midst of it all, attention was divided between the TV and the smaller screen. Arguing about politics is one of the many perpetuated social entertainments on the Internet, but it can often feel like there’s more talk and analysis than actual observations.

Twitter content

This content can also be viewed on the website originates from.

This, I suppose, is about the act of looking. AT essay in New York Times This weekKim Phuc Phan Thi — a woman known as the “Napalm Girl” after her image was captured by Associated Press photographer Nick Ut during the Vietnam War — wrote that the photograph often made her feel “ugly and shamefaced.” She noted that America generally doesn’t see photos of school shootings like last month’s in Uvalda, Texas, as photos of foreign wars. It may seem “unbearable,” she wrote, “but we must resist them.”

Although Uwalde native Matthew McConaughey did not show pictures of the Ross elementary school shooting itself, he spoke during a White House press conference on Tuesday about meeting with the families of the victims. During his speech, part of a call for stricter gun laws, he spoke of 10-year-old Maita Yuleana, whose green high top sneakers were “the only clear evidence to identify her during the shooting.” He rapped on the pulpit in desperation and pointed to his wife, Camille Alves, who was holding the same Converse in her hands. He asked everyone to look at them.

Television, social media, news reports – there is no shortage of things to pay attention to every day. It becomes almost meaningless, just pixels collected in different arrangements. As the Thursday night hearing drew to a close, Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards, who guarded the building during the Jan. 6 attack, testified. At some point, she passed out after hitting her head when the rebels broke in. She stood up and continued to try to control the crowd in what she called the war scene. “It was something like what I saw in the movies,” she said. “I couldn’t believe my eyes.” She asked if everyone else could.

Content

This content can also be viewed on the website originates from.




Credit: www.wired.com /

- Advertisement -

Stay on top - Get the daily news in your inbox

DMCA / Correction Notice

Recent Articles

Related Stories

Stay on top - Get the daily news in your inbox