Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Jan. 6 hearing was compelling, but not convincing to everyone

Jan. 6 committee hearing with Rep. Bennie Thompson and Rep. Liz Cheney

Rep. Bennie Thompson and Rep. Rep. Liz Cheney lead the first in a series of hearings in which their committee will present evidence related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol conducted a riveting public hearing in prime time Thursday. Carried by most of the major broadcast and cable news networks, the two-hour proceeding featured video of the riot, recorded statements from advisers to Donald Trump and powerful testimony from a police officer injured during the attack.

Observers on the left and right found the hearing compelling, the testimony heartfelt – but not always convincing.

What follows is a selection of responses from across the political spectrum.


Peter Baker in The New York Times:

Still, there was another audience for the hearings as they got underway, and that was Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. If the committee was laying out what it considered an indictment against the former president, it seemed to be inviting the Justice Department to pursue the real kind in a grand jury and court of law.

As she previewed the story that will be told in the weeks to come, Ms. Cheney all but wrote the script for Mr. Garland. “You will hear about plots to commit seditious conspiracy on Jan. 6,” she said, “a crime defined in our laws as conspiring to overthrow, put down or destroy by force the government of the United States or to oppose by force the authority thereof.”

Bill Kristol in The Bulwark:

Liz Cheney did her job tonight. Her remarks, and the hearing as a whole, gave me confidence the Jan. 6th Committee will do its job well over the next two weeks. We all complain, often justifiably, about the failures of our leaders, the failures in particular of members of Congress. But the Jan. 6th Committee, I will venture to say, will do its job. The question is whether we the people will do our duty in drawing the conclusions we need to draw. Will we make these hearings an inflection point in strengthening our democracy, not just a blip in politics as usual?

Susan Glasser in The New Yorker:

The hearing began and ended, as it should have, with Trump himself. “President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” Cheney said, consciously echoing an interview that she gave to Fox News on the afternoon of January 6th, while she and her colleagues were still in hiding from the pro-Trump mob. It said everything about where American politics are today that on Thursday night, a year and a half after the events in question, Fox News did not dare to broadcast Liz Cheney’s remarks—or to air the full hearing live, as the other networks did. Instead, it chose to run its regular evening programming of Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the Trump propaganda machine.

Brain Walsh, former communications aide for House and Senate Republicans:

Gary Abernathy in The Washington Post:

There was much focus on the actions of the militant Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. If the committee’s purpose was to convict those groups of planning and carrying out the Capitol incursion, they may have succeeded. If the goal was to prove that they were acting at Trump’s direction — even if they convinced themselves that they were through inferences and assumptions based on Trump’s random tweets — the committee failed. The sometimes convoluted efforts by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), the committee’s chairman, to connect the dots, and video editing that synced Trump’s comments with various insurrectionist acts, were ineffective.

Walter Shapiro in The New Republic:

The committee is still bipartisan, with Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger onboard. But these two Republicans remain the antithesis of the cult of Trump. The result: the first congressional committee in memory on which all nine members are united in the same cause—getting at the truth of the attempted coup of January 6. That meant the narrative was not interrupted by Benghazi-style grandstanding and conspiracy-mongering by scorched-earth Republicans.

Kimberly Strassel in the Wall Street Journal:

What’s actually missing in this special sauce of prime TV hours, slick videos and positive press is the one ingredient truly vital for public interest: credibility. If huge swathes of America ignore the committee’s work, it will be because the committee itself—through its construction and through its actions—made it easy.

Philip Bump in The Washington Post:

Yes, God forbid that Fox News should air an hour of propaganda or dishonesty. Carlson didn’t articulate the purported lies, which he couldn’t have, because the hearing hadn’t actually begun by that point. But it didn’t matter, because his audience wasn’t hearing the evidence from the hearing anyway. Was it a lie when the hearing showed William P. Barr, Trump’s ever-loyal attorney general, describing Trump’s voter-fraud claims as nonsense? Doesn’t matter, just wave it all away as untrustworthy without actually explaining what was said and why it couldn’t be trusted.

Debilyn Molineaux:

James Fallows:

Heather Cox Richardson:

Veteran reporter Bob Woodward called the evening “historic.” Looking back at the 1954 hearings that destroyed the career of Senator Joe McCarthy by revealing that he was lying to the American public, Woodward said that tonight’s event “was the equivalent of the Army-McCarthy hearings." (found in Heather Cox Richardson’s daily email)

Stephen Colbert:

Stephen's LIVE MONOLOGUE After The January 6th Committee Primetime Hearingwww.youtube.com


Read More

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.

AI chatbots are always guessing, even when they sound sure. Experts and Claude itself explain the AI trust gap, bias and why to check sources.

Oscar Wong/Getty Images

AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

In all the debates about human and machine intelligence, one thing has become clear: We humans love to talk about AI. We’ve speculated whether AI will create or eliminate jobs, revolutionize or destroy science, comfort or torment us, entertain us brilliantly or rot our brains, or some combination of all these things. But amid the noise, we may have paid too little attention to a subtler impact: how AI is disrupting our relationship to information and making it harder to know what to believe.

The problem isn’t just deepfakes, the malicious manipulation of images, video, and audio. Even benign, well-intentioned AI applications can be profoundly misleading. The nature of the large language models that power chatbots means that they are always guessing, however confident they seem. How can we use AI to produce reliable information that improves public discourse rather than distorting it?

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital illustration of robot's hand holding and supporting man who is working on his desk using computer, represent themes of artificial intelligence (AI), the future of work, and the intersection of humanity and technology.

Universal basic income would cost trillions. Wage insurance, a bigger child tax credit, and a tax break for work could help workers left behind by AI at a fraction of the price.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

AI’s Costs: The Human Element & the Response

The age of AI will be a revolutionary age. In medicine, engineering, and more, there is the possibility of great benefit to humanity. Consider some Wall Street Journal headlines: “The Quest to Use AI to Help Find New Drugs,” and “Fusion Startup Gets an AI Boost.” Already, AI is a substantial portion of GDP growth.

Yet a rising tide will not lift the boats with holes in their hulls, as Jack Kemp once said. Artificial intelligence is challenging our leaders to think about those possibly left behind. Within the AI community itself, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei expresses concern that we could see 5-10% GDP growth with 10% unemployment.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

Efficient AI may not mean less energy. The Jevons paradox shows why demand can grow, and why no one can say yet where AI’s real limits will be.

Getty Images, J Studios

The People Selling You the Future Don’t Know It Either

Artificial Intelligence is everywhere and can no longer be avoided. Will there ever be a ceiling for the expansion of this technology? AI companies are not just selling software. The story about the inevitability that AI will have in transforming work, education, medicine, art, government, and daily life is much more profitable. People must accept the transformation or be left behind. They are selling behind a mask of certainty.

The court of public opinion on AI has concluded that this technology is too energy-consuming for the benefits it allegedly brings and the ways many people use it. Therefore, companies have shifted their agendas to presenting efficiency as a solution to the technology’s enormous need for power. Smaller, better models and chips, and more efficient data centers may reduce the energy required for a single text-based request or generated image. If those improvements make AI cheaper to use, it will be invited into more daily life right?

Keep ReadingShow less