Member-only story
Why the “Civil Unrest” rhetoric, itself, is the problem.
In building such a well-appointed stage, the news media is daring fringes of US society to commit acts of domestic terrorism.
Turn on a mainstream media outlet, and you’ll find pundits debate the peaceful transfer of power after the election later this week. I fear that this, itself, is part of the problem: Even just asking someone ‘will there be a peaceful transition of power’ leaves the door open to the answer being ‘no’. It isn’t that this isn’t worthy of debate — but the dogged focus on this very specific question may, in fact, turn out to be the reason why some people choose to give it more thought than it really deserves.
The media coverage of ‘risk of civil unrest’ in the aftermath of the election will be the driving cause of civil unrest in the aftermath of the election.
I am worried that the constant media coverage of the ‘risk of civil unrest’ in the aftermath of the election will, in fact, be the driving cause of civil unrest in the aftermath of the election. In relentlessly pursuing this line of questioning and reporting, it normalizes the conversation — but it does something worse, too: The media is…
