Media Bias Exposed: J6 Rioters Vilified, BLM Rioters Sanitized

The Tale of Two Riots

The January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and the 2020 Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests represent two of the most significant episodes of civil unrest in recent U.S. history. Yet, the media’s treatment of these events couldn’t be more different: J6 rioters were virtually prosecuted as threats to democracy, while BLM rioters—despite causing 25+ deaths and billions in damages—were routinely painted as peaceful. This stark double standard reveals a troubling bias that shapes public perception and undermines trust in media narratives. Let’s examine the facts, the coverage, and the implications of this disparity.

I. The Tale of Two Riots: A Factual Comparison

• January 6, 2021 (J6): A mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election. Over 140 officers were injured, and the event led to 5 deaths (none ruled homicides directly caused by rioters). Property damage was estimated at $2.7 million (Architect of the Capitol, 2021).
• BLM Protests (2020): Sparked by George Floyd’s killing, protests swept the nation, with 93% being peaceful (ACLED, 2020). But the violent minority caused havoc: 25+ deaths (including officers and civilians), 2,000+ injured officers (FBI, 2020), and $2 billion in property damage across 140+ cities (Axios, 2020). Entire city blocks burned in places like Minneapolis and Portland.

II. Media Narratives: Vilification vs. Sanitization

• J6 Coverage: The media framed J6 as an “insurrection” and a “lethal attack on democracy.” Outlets like CNN and The New York Times ran wall-to-wall coverage, emphasizing the riot’s threat to lawmakers and democratic norms. Terms like “domestic terrorism” dominated headlines, and 63% of Americans came to believe J6 rioters directly killed an officer—a myth that persisted despite corrections (YouGov, 2021). The narrative cast J6 participants as a coordinated, existential threat, with little nuance for individual motivations.
• BLM Coverage: Despite the staggering toll—25+ deaths, including officers like David Dorn, killed by looters in St. Louis—the media consistently labeled BLM protests as “mostly peaceful.” NBC News and The Washington Post focused on systemic racism and police brutality, often framing violent actors as “opportunists” not reflective of the movement. Footage of burning businesses or injured officers was downplayed, while peaceful marches were amplified. In Portland, where riots spanned 100+ nights, The Guardian described the unrest as “largely symbolic.”

III. The Consequences of Media Bias

• Public Perception: The media’s portrayal shaped how Americans viewed each event. A 2021 Gallup poll found 76% of respondents saw J6 as a “crisis for democracy,” while only 45% viewed BLM unrest as a significant threat, despite its far greater death toll and destruction. This disparity fueled polarized narratives: J6 rioters were cast as irredeemable villains, while BLM rioters were often excused as part of a noble cause.
• Political Weaponization:
  • J6: Democrats and media allies used the “insurrection” framing to justify sweeping investigations into Trump supporters, pushing for a January 6 Commission and labeling dissenters as “apologists.”
  • BLM: Progressive leaders, including then-Senator Kamala Harris, supported bail funds for arrested protesters, and outlets rarely pressed for accountability, focusing instead on police reform.

IV. Legal Treatment: A Glaring Double Standard

• J6 Prosecutions: The federal response was relentless—1,350+ charges filed, with 335+ guilty pleas for assaulting officers (DOJ, April 2025). Sentences averaged 2-3 years, often for non-violent offenses like obstruction of Congress. The FBI deployed facial recognition and public tip lines, treating J6 as a national security threat.
• BLM Prosecutions: Most charges were handled locally, often for arson or looting, with lighter consequences. In Portland, only 10% of 2020 protest-related arrests led to convictions (Oregon DOJ, 2021). Despite 2,000+ injured officers and 25+ deaths, there was no federal task force or national dragnet. High-profile cases like Dorn’s murder were covered briefly, then faded.

V. The Human Cost: What the Media Ignored

• J6 Impact: The riot disrupted a constitutional process and injured 140 officers, but no homicides were directly attributed to rioters. The media’s focus on “lethality” exaggerated the body count while ignoring the event’s symbolic damage to democracy.
• BLM Impact: The 25+ deaths included civilians shot during riots, officers killed by looters, and bystanders caught in crossfire. In Minneapolis, the 3rd Precinct police station was burned to the ground, and entire neighborhoods were reduced to ash. Yet, the media’s “mostly peaceful” refrain minimized these losses, framing the violence as an unfortunate footnote.

VI. Why the Bias Matters

• Erosion of Trust: When the media vilifies J6 rioters as domestic terrorists but sanitizes BLM rioters despite their deadlier toll, public skepticism grows. If 93% of BLM protests were peaceful, why wasn’t the 7% that killed 25+ people and caused $2 billion in damage scrutinized equally?
• Unequal Justice: The aggressive federal response to J6 versus the lenient, localized approach to BLM raises questions of fairness. If J6 rioters face years in prison for assaulting officers, why didn’t BLM rioters who injured 2,000+ officers face similar scrutiny?
• Polarization: The media’s double standard fuels division. Conservatives see J6 coverage as proof of a “witch hunt,” while progressives view BLM leniency as justified by systemic racism. Both sides dig in, and nuance is lost.

VII. Moving Forward: Demanding Media Accountability

• Call for Balance: Media outlets must apply consistent standards. If J6 is an “insurrection,” then BLM riots that killed 25+ people and torched cities deserve equal scrutiny—not a free pass as “mostly peaceful.”
• Equal Accountability: Legal systems should prioritize fairness. Intent (overturning an election vs. protesting racism) shouldn’t dictate such drastic differences in prosecution.
• Focus on Truth: The media should amplify facts over narratives. J6 was a serious breach of democratic norms, but BLM’s violence had a far higher human cost. Both deserve honest reckoning.

Final Note:
The media’s treatment of J6 and BLM rioters reveals a glaring bias: J6 participants were virtually prosecuted as threats to democracy, while BLM rioters—despite killing 25+ people and setting fire to cities—were painted as peaceful. This double standard distorts reality, erodes trust, and deepens division. As political tensions persist, media accountability is more urgent than ever.

Why Does the Left Keep Ghosting Pollsters Like a Bad Tinder Date?

A Tragicomedy of Polling Disappointments and Election Night Surprises, featuring our favorite Ecadorian politicians Daniel Noboa and Luisa Gonzalez.

1. Enthusiasm Gap: The "Retweet ≠ Vote" Paradox

• Youth Mobilization vs. Boomer Reliability:
  Young progressives often mistake social media activism for electoral impact. In Ecuador, only 58% of under-30 urban voters showed up, while 85% of rural voters over 50 stormed the polls (Ecuador NEC, 2025).
  → Lesson: Retweets don’t fill ballot boxes. The right’s older base treats voting like a religious ritual; the left’s youth treat it like an optional group project.

---

2. Social Desirability Bias: The "Virtue-Signal Vortex"

• Pollsters vs. Privacy:
  Voters often tell pollsters what’s socially acceptable (e.g., “I support climate justice!”) but prioritize pocketbook issues in the booth. González’s anti-austerity rhetoric won applause, but Noboa’s “lower gas prices, crush cartels” pitch won votes.
  → Analogy: It’s like ordering a kale salad in public… then Uber Eats-ing a pizza at midnight.

---

3. Polling Methodology: Urban Echo Chambers

• Sampling Bias:
  Pollsters over-indexed on Quito’s college students while ignoring rural farmers—who turned out at 2:1 ratios (Ecuador NEC, 2025). Rural voters were as visible to pollsters as Area 51 aliens.
  → Flaw: Polling landlines in a TikTok era is like using a typewriter to code Python.

---

4. Late-Deciders: The "Panic-Buy Voter"

• Crime Trumps Ideology:
  Undecided voters broke for Noboa after his “cartel annihilation” pledge. González’s focus on corruption felt abstract; Noboa’s promise felt like a SWAT team for daily safety.
  → Metaphor: Undecideds are Black Friday shoppers—they’ll grab the last TV on the shelf, even if it’s not their dream brand.

---

5. Strategic Voting: The "Lesser Evil Calculus"

• Survival > Socialism:
  Voters prioritized “not getting kidnapped” over wealth redistribution. Noboa’s law-and-order pitch resonated in a country where 65% feel unsafe walking at night (Latinobarómetro, 2024).
  → Reality Check: You can’t eat ideological purity. Fear of chaos often outweighs hope for utopia.

---

6. Turnout Machines: Left’s Kryptonite

• Right-Wing Discipline:
  Noboa’s base treated voting like jury duty (skip it, face consequences). González’s supporters treated it like a New Year’s resolution—abandoned by January 2.
  → Data: A 15% turnout gap between left and right bases sealed her fate (Ecuador NEC, 2025).

---

Global Pattern: Polling’s Recurring Nightmare

• Historical Parallels:
  Hillary’s 2016 “certain win,” Brexit’s “Remain lead,” Kamala's "Appointment to the Presidency" and now Ecuador’s shocker all share a thread: polls underestimate silent majorities prioritizing stability over idealism.
  → Solution: The left needs rural GPS (ground game beyond cities) and ditch hashtag activism for turnout operatives with clipboards and caffeine addictions.

---

Conclusion: How to Stop the Ghosting

• For Pollsters:
  Mix IVR surveys with TikTok pulse checks. Track late-deciders like FBI most-wanted lists.
• For the Left:
  Swap “revolutionary” slogans for pothole-fixing pragmatism. If your base won’t vote, you’re just a philosophy club.
• For Voters:
  Stop lying to pollsters. They’re not your therapist.

Until then, Magic 8-Balls might outperform Cedatos. At least they’re honest about being clueless. 🔮

Debunking the $10,000 Myth: The Real Cost of a Made-in-USA iPhone

The idea that an iPhone manufactured entirely in the United States would cost $10,000 has gained traction in popular culture, fueled by comedians and YouTubers. While the claim makes for an entertaining punchline, it oversimplifies the complexities of global manufacturing and economics. In reality, the cost of a U.S.-made iPhone would be higher than its current price, but NOT EVEN CLOSE TO the exaggerated $10,000 figure.

The Labor Cost Factor

One of the main arguments for the $10,000 claim is the higher labor costs in the United States compared to countries like China. Currently, Foxconn, Apple’s contracted manufacturer in China, pays its employees around $3.00 per hour. By contrast, the iMac Pro is assembled in Texas, where workers earn closer to $30.00 per hour. While this significant wage disparity would indeed increase manufacturing costs, analysts estimate that labor costs alone would raise the price of an iPhone by approximately 20%. For example, an iPhone 16 Pro, currently priced at $1,199, might rise to up to $1,450 due to labor expenses, or around $250.00 more.

Additionally, there’s another factor—Apple may decide to automate more of the production process, much like Xiaomi’s new Automated Factory, which has significantly reduced labor dependency.  If they did this, the cost would be practically the same as the current costs in China, but won't add very many jobs in the USA.  Even in this scenario however the fact that they would most likely buy more parts and logistics in the USA would end up increasing total employment.

The increase in cost to Apple would be closer to just $135!

Alternatively, in order to retain market share, Apple could cut its massive margins, which are currently around double the industry average. With these measures in place, a U.S.-manufactured iPhone would see price increases, but not anywhere near the extreme $10,000 claim.

Supply Chain and Component Sourcing

Another critical factor is the global supply chain. Many iPhone components, such as displays and processors, are manufactured in countries like South Korea and Taiwan. Even if assembly were moved to the U.S., Apple would still need to import these parts, potentially facing tariffs and logistical challenges. However, just as the Trump Administration allowed a carveout for smartphones to avoid high import taxes, a similar carveout would likely apply if iPhones were manufactured in the U.S. This could exempt smartphone parts from high tariffs or tax them at a lower 10% rate, significantly mitigating cost increases. Analysts suggest that even with these adjustments, the price of a high-end model would likely be closer to $1,500—not $10,000.

Cost Breakdown: Parts vs. Labor

To better understand the cost dynamics, here’s a breakdown of the estimated costs for an iPhone assembled in China versus the USA:

Cost Component	China	USA
Parts (e.g., display, processor, etc.)	$400	$400
Labor (assembly)	$40	$200
Additional logistics/tariffs	$50	$25
Total Estimated Cost	$490	$625

This chart illustrates that while labor and logistics costs would increase somewhat in the U.S., the total cost would still fall far short of the $10,000 myth.  The ACTUAL increase in cost to Apple would be closer to just $135!  Last year, Apple sold almost 232M iPhones.  That works out to a cost increase of around $31B.  While sure, nearly 1/3rd of their profits, if they didn't increase the price.  However Apple's total profits last year was over $90B on nearly $400B in revenue.  If they say, "split the difference" and maybe raise the price by $68, their profits at $75B WOULD STILL be greater than BOTH Alphabet (Nearly $74B) and Microsoft (Just over $72B)

The $10,000 Myth: Where Does It Come From?

The exaggerated $10,000 figure likely stems from a misunderstanding of manufacturing economics. It assumes that every aspect of production, from raw materials to assembly, would be relocated to the U.S. instantly and without optimization. In reality, Apple would likely adopt a phased approach, leveraging existing infrastructure and negotiating tariff exemptions to mitigate costs.

Why the U.S.-Made iPhone Is Feasible

While a fully U.S.-made iPhone would face challenges, it’s not impossible. Apple has already demonstrated its ability to manufacture products domestically, such as the Mac Pro in Texas. With strategic investments, automation, and policy support, the company could gradually increase U.S.-based production without reaching the astronomical price point of $10,000.  Realistically the Mac Pro a BEAST of a machine is around $6K, so how could they possibly sell a tiny iPhone with far less power for $10K!  It's just ridiculous.

Conclusion

The claim that a U.S.-made iPhone would cost $10,000 is more myth than reality. While higher labor costs and supply chain adjustments would increase the price, estimates suggest a more realistic range of $1,500 to $3,500 for high-end models. With potential carveouts for smartphone parts, as seen in past trade policies, the cost could be further reduced. Moreover, when considering that Foxconn pays workers $3.00 an hour compared to $30.00 an hour for iMac Pro manufacturing in Texas, it’s clear that automation and margin adjustments could make U.S. production feasible. As discussions about domestic manufacturing continue, it’s essential to separate fact from fiction and focus on the real challenges and opportunities of bringing production back to the United States.