The first night of the January 6th parliamentary inquiry was not entertainment. It was a deadly and serious reality, providing a real nightmare panorama and a terrifying close-up. An attempt to effectively end American democracy by overturning voters’ will and keeping President Donald J. Trump in the office through violence. He lost.
However, the hearing was also a television and attracted attention in the dissonant media environment. This isn’t just what I’m talking about as a television critic. The committee itself acknowledged this by inviting former ABC News president and producer James Goldston to shape the broadcast and broadcast it during the golden hours.
This was not just a loyal time capsule for historical archives. This is a TV intended to break through, and importantly, now..
What I saw in this first article was impressive. A well-crafted, passionate, disciplined two-hour opening act. In the words of Mississippi Democratic Party Chairman Bennie Thompson, the Commission’s claim that the attack on the Capitol was not a voluntary explosion, but rather a “culmination of attempted coups” was a miniature. And it promised to flesh out larger plots with fine details and vast casts that were intriguing.
The minutes had familiar features, including live testimony and opening remarks from Mr. Thompson and Rep. Liz Cheney of the Wyoming Republican Party. However, it’s packaged like a Golden Time news special, with live elements seamlessly interspersed with recorded interview excerpts, timestamps, and graphics.
Read more about the January 6 House Committee hearing
But even more striking was the broadcast structure reminiscent of 2022’s most ubiquitous television format, a limited series of true crime and true scandals.
Like the drama torn from “Under the Banner of Heaven,” “Candy,” and similar headings, it introduced the climax of violence in the first episode — an attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. —Point-A view montage that targets viewers with mob blows and curses. Then I went back to the timeline and promised to delve into the bigger conditions and tricks behind the crime.
It had both a temporary structure and a continuous arc. Mr. Chaney explained how each episode focuses on part of Mr. Trump’s “Plan for Seven Points.” However, the presentation also put these parts in the overall context, and Mr. Trump was told by his closest adviser that he had lost, and planned to abandon the election anyway, an organized violent group. A day in Washington that gave evidence that he had summoned supporters for the “wild”.
After that, the muscles materialized under the Trump flag.
In a compact length by parliamentary standards, the hearing introduced the character, relationships, and the universe of adversaries. Presidential advisers include former Attorney General William P. Barr, who used stronger words in “nonsense” to dismiss allegations of election fraud. According to the commission, Mr. Trump’s anger at Vice President Mike Pence told the former president that members of the mob threatening to hang Mr. Pence may “have the right idea.” He explained that Trump support groups, including Proud Boys, are leading collaborative strikes rather than voluntary explosions.
Curtain Razor was sometimes cruel to see the testimony of Caroline Edwards, a police officer in the Capitol, who was injured on January 6th. .. Perhaps the most daunting was seeing the quietly spoken Edwards watching a video of her own assault.
The testimony moved to the other side of the front with the documentary Nick Quested, who was embedded in the Proud Boys before and during the attack. His contribution was not only a more shocking footage, but also a dissertation that the group began to move towards the Capitol before Mr. Trump spoke at the January 6 rally. This goes against the idea that siege is just a protest. I got out of hand.
I know that some readers are angry at simply using a “story” or “story” to explain important information about an attack on democracy. But these are not insults. The structure of the story is not unique to Marvel movies. Narratives give a flood of information formats and patterns. Storytelling is a tool for engagement as well as distraction.
The committee knows this clearly. As Jake Tapper mentioned on CNN before the hearing, these sessions didn’t have to be televised at all. You may have just published a report. But, as television proves, not everyone wants an 800-page paperback when they can opt for a compelling multipart adaptation. (At least 20 million people watched the hearing, according to Nielsen’s assessment.)
Also, if you want to know the power of applying entertainment TV lessons to politics, check out Fox News, which didn’t broadcast a hearing but aggressively attacked the night. Former talk show producer Roger Ales built Fox in part based on showbiz’s production value, provocation, and emotional appeal. Authoritarian-friendly Tucker Carlson, the channel’s current star, told his considerable audience that the bloody assault on the center of government was “unforgettable.”
The January 6th hearing, whether you like it or not, must live in this context of infotainment and demagogue. And the first episode was familiar not only with more TV viewers, but also with smaller viewers: the news media, and what it takes to maximize coverage.
Nothing brings out the news as much as novelty. Newly released short scooplets often outweigh the serious plots freely confessed from the president’s podium or by tweets. As a result, the Commission repeatedly referred to a “never seen” video, a descriptor that was repeated many times during television coverage.
The program provided preview clips of bold testimony, including Ivanka Trump’s testimony, undermining his father’s claim that he accepted Mr. Barr’s assessment. Even the run time was less than two hours, leaving time for summarization and analysis before the 10 pm block of the broadcast network.
However, there was an important difference between this work and the television crime drama. The hearing did not leave a mystery about the theory of their case, and they did not feel any embarrassment (at the Commission’s discretion) about whodunits, methods, or reasons.
The last difference, and perhaps most importantly: this was once a true criminal series made with the urgent hope of no sequel.