Corporate media titans are extremely concerned that 41,000 hours of previously unreleased video from the January 6 riots have been made available to an ideological news organization with a political agenda primarily because they believe the material should be made available to their ideological news organizations with a political agenda.
It's right there in the Constitution.
You have to look in the penumbra. The outer penumbra.
The Washington Post appeared to be previously disinterested in gaining access to videos beyond those carefully scrubbed by the January 6 Committee prosecutors. Here's a search to see how demanding The Washington Post has been.
Note how that first entry, reflecting the sudden interest, is worded.
After Tucker Carlson given Jan. 6 tapes...
Yes, "after."
Before?
Performing a similar search using CNN, part of another cabal of corporate media members now demanding access, yields much the same with the exception of a piece detailing their courageously brave effort to gain access to a different set of cherry-picked videos put together by an entirely different set of prosecutors.
There is nothing these champions of truth and justice would not do to ensure that the sacred narrative be preserved.
It was only a few days ago in reporting the release of the material to Tucker Carlson that the Washington Post was still pushing their preferred argument as to why the vast majority of video evidence not be released:
But the security!!!
McCarthy's decision to provide Carlson with the video drew harsh criticism over the security risks of handing over footage that could contain information about the Capitol's complex security apparatus....
"The apparent transfer of video footage represents an egregious security breach that endangers the hardworking women and men of the United States Capitol Police, who valiantly defended our democracy with their lives at risk on that fateful day...."
Thompson said Monday that there could be major security risks if the video footage were used irresponsibly....
It's hard to overstate the potential security risks if this material were used irresponsibly."
"It's hard to overstate the potential security risks."
Not that they aren't going to try, of course.
Here is one of the specific calamities that await our nation should this video footage be made widely available.
The decision by McCarthy to provide the video to Carlson raised serious questions about whether the release of the footage would force U.S. Capitol Police to change the location of security cameras...
Move cameras around? What fresh madness is this?!
You can tell that while they are deeply concerned about the inherent complexities involved in moving cameras around, there are even more serious issues afoot:
They might be forced to move around the plot points in their carefully crafted television series.
Fixing that is going to require more than a trip to Home Depot, as distasteful as that might be.
Unfortunately, there are some people, often referred to as "journalists" for some reason (like the guy who spent his whole life in Iowa who everyone calls "The Admiral") who believe it is their job to question authority rather than be its Praetorian guard.
...and why the speaker would give the material to a Fox News host who has peddled conspiracy theories about the attack and not share it with other news organizations.
The reason there are conspiracy theories about the attack is because the government was withholding information, and nature hates a vacuum.
The corporate media seemed to be perfectly okay with that.
Until now.
"If Speaker McCarthy has indeed granted Tucker Carlson — a Fox host who routinely spreads misinformation and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's poisonous propaganda — and his producers access to this sensitive footage, he owes the American people an explanation of why he has done so and what steps he has taken to address the significant security concerns at stake," Thompson said in a statement late Monday.
Speaker McCarthy owes the American people an explanation as to why he would give Tucker Carlson information that they claim would prove Tucker Carlson is wrong?
When the January 6 Committee had access to the footage, they went through great pains to make sure that the people in power would get to decide what the people who are not in power would get to see.
It's called, "speaking power to truth." That's how it goes, right?
Access was limited to members and a small handful of investigators and senior staff, and the public use of any footage was coordinated in advance with Capitol Police.
The committee asked for permission from U.S. Capitol Police before they used any of the footage in public hearings...
...as the panel did not want to publicly disclose the location of security cameras in the building.
Here's a little secret only we Washington insiders are privy to.
The location of security cameras in the building are as follows:
- Everywhere.
You're welcome.
"We used the material that we thought was most important in demonstrating findings, and we were extremely cautious in what we chose to use," said a former committee staffer who expressed concerns about the security risks posed by Carlson's access to the entire trove of surveillance footage.
"We used the material that we thought was most important in demonstrating findings,..."
That is, they released only the material that supported their conclusions.
This is the part they either don't get, or do get and don't care.
They apparently figured out over the course of the week that they were not going to shame McCarthy into, I don't know, un-releasing the video to Carlson, so they thought they might as well try to get ahead of the curve so they could preserve as best they could the tale they have already weaved and maybe even preempt whatever explosive findings Carlson might dig up.
This very well might end up being a big fat nothingburger in the end. After all, people in power (that is, people who have something to lose) tend to be reflexively secretive.
However, it seems like those same people in power – the ones who have seen the footage we haven't – are awfully concerned we're going to get our chance.
