CAPITOL RIOTS OVERRUN DC

In yet another expression of a nation divided entirely between two worlds, thousands of Americans died of COVID-19 infection on Jan. 6, 2021, while thousands others stormed a building they would have considered untouchably sacred under any other president’s administration.

Many garbed in a bright red, white-lettered attire (with a healthy amount of Gadsden flag flair, of course), those rioters, somehow believing they were defending the American republic while forcefully interrupting its proceedings, entered the D.C. Capitol with intent to ensure the incumbent president retained his hold on the American government.

After an extended standoff, several deaths already under their belt, the insurrectionists would scatter, the electoral count they so desperately hoped to – at the very least, delay – accelerated instead, the results not in their favor, in the slightest.

Weeks of the president’s pushing of his election-fraud narrative, consistently lacking verifiable authentication, no doubt served as the greatest contribution to the anger present that day. Using his incredibly influential platform to discredit the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s popular and electoral win, Donald Trump positioned himself as though a divinely appointed leader, a figurehead it would be blasphemous to defy.

This sentiment paired perfectly with an already present tendency toward religious devotion in conservative spaces. A recent video released by The New Yorker magazine depicting various invaders standing within the Senate chamber, heads bowed in passionate prayer, is more than enough proof of a closely held loyalty to faith the president exploited to secure his place as a holy man, not to be questioned. Misinformation, a favorite tool of his cabinet, had been proving its dreadful efficacy for four years, and it revealed only a fraction of its potential in D.C. that afternoon.

The Advocate, understanding itself as a publication where the perspective of the student body is the priority, cannot overstate the disgust such an event has drawn out. The “correct” way to go about the process of governance is something constantly debated, and for good reason, and it makes an almost-unanimous condemnation of the siege as fascinating as it is unsurprising. Extreme ideological disagreement from the left-of-center perspective, paired with a drive to preserve the idea of American exceptionalism from the right-of-center perspective, made an interesting alliance as a result of Jan. 6, a rare coming-together from many voters during an era otherwise spent utterly separated.

Our staff, carrying a collection of worldviews united by a desire for informative storytelling and honest interpretation of events, therefore cannot help but deeply oppose a movement antagonistic to the latter, and urge for fair, and just, consequences for those with clear intent only to harm our public institutions for selfishly narrow-minded reasons.

Journalism, a literary artform constantly under the spotlight (for better or worse) during the Trump presidency, has never existed without dishonest contribution. However, it would also be dishonest to pretend as though it hasn’t been better-handled in the past. Mass media, a wonderful conduit for legitimately liberating information, also undoubtedly set the stage for the ugly episode in question, entirely.

It is clear that for the foreseeable future of the medium, the immortal dichotomy between greater enlightenment and unjustified incitement will be one to be struggled with for as long as the collective continues to have greater voice together.

What we do know for certain is that it is still very much a risk worth taking.