
The L.A. Distortion Effect
One hallmark of our current moment is that when an event happens, there is little collective agreement on even basic facts. This, despite there being more documentary evidence than ever before in history: Information is abundant, yet consensus is elusive.
The ICE protests in Los Angeles over the past week offer an especially relevant example of this phenomenon. What has transpired is fairly clear: A series of ICE raids and arrests late last week prompted protests in select areas of the city, namely downtown, near a federal building where ICE has offices, and around City Hall and the Metropolitan Detention Center. There have been other protests south of there, around a Home Depot in Paramount, where Border Patrol agents gathered last week. The majority of these protests have been civil ('I mostly saw clergy sit-ins and Tejano bands,' The American Prospect 's David Dayen wrote). There has been some looting and property destruction. 'One group of vandals summoned several Waymo self-driving cars to the street next to the plaza where the city was founded and set them ablaze,' my colleague Nick Miroff, who has been present at the demonstrations, wrote.
As is common in modern protests, there has also been ample viral footage from news organizations showing militarized police responding aggressively in encounters, sometimes without provocation. In one well-circulated clip, an officer in riot gear fires a nonlethal round directly at an Australian television correspondent carrying a microphone while on air; another piece of footage shot from above shows a police officer on horseback trampling a protester on the ground.
All of these dynamics are familiar in the post-Ferguson era of protest. What you are witnessing is a news event distributed and consumed through a constellation of different still images and video clips, all filmed from different perspectives and presented by individuals and organizations with different agendas. It is a buffet of violence, celebration, confusion, and sensationalism. Consumed in aggregate, it might provide an accurate representation of the proceedings: a tense, potentially dangerous, but still contained response by a community to a brutal federal immigration crackdown.
Unfortunately, very few people consume media this way. And so the protests follow the choose-your-own-adventure quality of a fractured media ecosystem, where, depending on the prism one chooses, what's happening in L.A. varies considerably.
Anyone is capable of cherry-picking media to suit their arguments, of course, and social media has always narrowed the aperture of news events to fit particular viewpoints. Regardless of ideology, dramatic perspectives succeed on platforms. It is possible that one's impression of the protests would be incorrectly skewed if informed only by Bluesky commentators, MSNBC guests, or self-proclaimed rational centrists. The right, for example, has mocked the idea of 'mostly peaceful protests' as ludicrous when juxtaposed with video of what they see as evidence to the contrary. It's likely that my grasp of the events and their politics are shaped by decades of algorithmic social-media consumption.
Yet the situation in L.A. only further clarifies the asymmetries among media ecosystems. This is not an even playing field. The right-wing media complex has a disproportionate presence and is populated by extreme personalities who have no problem embracing nonsense AI imagery and flagrantly untrue reporting that fits their agenda. Here you will find a loosely affiliated network of streamers, influencers, alternative social networks, extremely online vice presidents, and Fox News personalities who appear invested in portraying the L.A. protests as a full-blown insurrection. To follow these reports is to believe that people are not protesting but rioting throughout the city. In this alternate reality, the whole of Los Angeles is a bona fide war zone. (It is not, despite President Donald Trump's wildly disproportionate response, which includes deploying hundreds of U.S. Marines to the area and federalizing thousands of National Guard members.)
I spent the better part of the week drinking from this particular firehose, reading X and Truth Social posts and watching videos from Rumble. On these platforms, the protests are less a news event than a justification for the authoritarian use of force. Nearly every image or video contains selectively chosen visuals of burning cars or Mexican flags unfurling in a smog of tear gas, and they're cycled on repeat to create a sense of overwhelming chaos. They have titles such as 'CIVIL WAR ALERT' and 'DEMOCRATS STOKE WW3!' All of this incendiary messaging is assisted by generative-AI images of postapocalyptic, smoldering city streets—pure propaganda to fill the gap between reality and the world as the MAGA faithful wish to see it.
I've written before about how the internet has obliterated the monoculture, empowering individuals to cocoon themselves in alternate realities despite confounding evidence—it is a machine that justifies any belief. This is not a new phenomenon, but the problem is getting worse as media ecosystems mature and adjust to new technologies. On Tuesday, one of the top results for one user's TikTok search for Los Angeles curfew was an AI-generated video rotating through slop images of a looted city under lockdown. Even to the untrained eye, the images were easily identifiable as AI-rendered (the word curfew came out looking like ciuftew). Still, it's not clear that this matters to the people consuming and sharing the bogus footage. Even though such reality-fracturing has become a load-bearing feature of our information environment, the result is disturbing: Some percentage of Americans believes that one of the country's largest cities is now a hellscape, when, in fact, almost all residents of Los Angeles are going about their normal lives.
On platforms such as Bluesky and Instagram, I've seen L.A. residents sharing pictures of themselves going about their day-to-day lives—taking out the trash, going to the farmers' market—and lots of pictures of the city's unmistakable skyline against the backdrop of a beautiful summer day. These are earnest efforts to show the city as it is (fine)—an attempt to wrest control of a narrative, albeit one that is actually based in truth. Yet it's hard to imagine any of this reaching the eyes of the people who participate in the opposing ecosystem, and even if it did, it's unclear whether it would matter. As I documented in October, after Hurricanes Helene and Milton destroyed parts of the United States, AI-generated images were used by Trump supporters 'to convey whatever partisan message suits the moment, regardless of truth.'
In the cinematic universe of right-wing media, the L.A. ICE protests are a sequel of sorts to the Black Lives Matter protests of the summer of 2020. It doesn't matter that the size and scope have been different in Los Angeles (at present, the L.A. protests do not, for instance, resemble the 100-plus nights of demonstrations and clashes between protesters and police that took place in Portland, Oregon, in 2020): Influencers and broadcasters on the right have seized on the association with those previous protests, insinuating that this next installment, like all sequels, will be a bigger and bolder spectacle. Politicians are running the sequel playbook—Senator Tom Cotton, who wrote a rightly criticized New York Times op-ed in 2020 urging Trump to 'Send in the Troops' to quash BLM demonstrations, wrote another op-ed, this time for The Wall Street Journal, with the headline 'Send in the Troops, for Real.' (For transparency's sake, I should note that I worked for the Times opinion desk when the Cotton op-ed was published and publicly objected to it at the time.)
There is a sequel vibe to so much of the Trump administration's second term. The administration's policies are more extreme, and there's a brazenness to the whole affair—nobody's even trying to justify the plot (or, in this case, cover up the corruption and dubious legality of the government's deportation regime). All of us, Trump supporters very much included, are treated as a captive audience, forced to watch whether we like it or not.
This feeling has naturally trickled down to much of the discourse and news around Trump's second presidency, which feels (and generally is) direr, angrier, more intractable. The distortions are everywhere: People mainlining fascistic AI slop are occupying an alternate reality. But even those of us who understand the complexity of the protests are forced to live in our own bifurcated reality, one where, even as the internet shows us fresh horrors every hour, life outside these feeds may be continuing in ways that feel familiar and boring. We are living through the regime of a budding authoritarian—the emergency is here, now—yet our cities are not yet on fire in the way that many shock jocks say they are.
The only way out of this mess begins with resisting the distortions. In many cases, the first step is to state things plainly. Los Angeles is not a lawless, postapocalyptic war zone. The right to protest is constitutionally protected, and protests have the potential to become violent—consider how Trump is attempting to use the force of the state to silence dissent against his administration. There are thousands more peaceful demonstrations scheduled nationally this weekend. The tools that promised to empower us, connect us, and bring us closer to the truth are instead doing the opposite. A meaningful percentage of American citizens appears to have dissociated from reality. In fact, many of them seem to like it that way.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Deportations Aren't What They Seem
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. From the beginning, Donald Trump's approach to deportations has been about both removing people from the country and the spectacle of removing people from the country. If any doubt lingered about the president's commitment to the cause, he erased it in Los Angeles, where his response to the widespread protests against a series of ICE raids—he has dispatched roughly 4,000 California National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines, all against the wishes of the state's governor—has been an extraordinary (and extraordinarily excessive) demonstration of force. Trump's message has been clear: No matter who or what tries to get in the way, his administration will push forward with deportations. L.A. is 'the first, perhaps, of many' military deployments in the United States, Trump said earlier this week. The spectacle part, Trump has down. The president has ushered in one of the most aggressive immigration campaigns in recent American history. The ICE raids in L.A. are just the latest of many high-profile instances in which federal law-enforcement officials have antagonized and rounded up suspected undocumented immigrants—some of whom are citizens or legal residents. Hundreds of immigrants have been swept away to what functionally is a modern Gulag in El Salvador, and the administration has recently tried to send others to South Sudan, which is on the verge of civil war. Enforcing immigration policy does not have to be inhumane, but the Trump administration is gloating in the very barbarity. Amid all the bravado, however, the administration much more quietly has been struggling to deliver on Trump's campaign promise to 'launch the largest deportation program of criminals in the history of America.' So far, deportations have not dramatically spiked under Trump, though daily rates have been on the rise in recent weeks. According to government data obtained by The New York Times, the administration has deported more than 200,000 people since Trump's return to office, well below the rate needed to meet the White House's reported goal of removing 1 million unauthorized immigrants in his first year in office. If the pace over the first five months of Trump's presidency continues through the end of the year, total deportations would only slightly exceed that of President Barack Obama in fiscal year 2012. The discrepancy is surprising. Given the visibility of Trump's efforts, you'd be forgiven for believing deportations were unfolding on a never-before-seen scale. The actual numbers don't diminish the cruelty of Trump's approach or the pain his administration has caused to those it has targeted. But they do reveal Trump's ever-increasing mastery of bending perceptions of reality. The administration's immigration tactics are so shocking, callous, and inescapable that they have generated the appearance of mass deportations. Paranoid rumors of ICE agents hovering around playgrounds, waiting to arrest noncitizen nannies, have spread. Some immigrants have opted to self-deport instead of subjecting themselves to the potential horrors of ICE detainment and deportation. No reason exists to think the White House has been deliberately falling behind on its deportation promise. The administration has run into several challenges: The easiest migrants to deport are those who have just crossed the border, and unauthorized immigration has dropped significantly since Trump took office. (Trump's deportation approach and rhetoric has, in other words, seemingly been successful at keeping people out of the country in the first place.) At times, ICE has faced detention space constraints, and some of the administration's deportations have been stymied in the courts. In an email, the White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson wrote, 'President Trump has already secured the border in record time and is now fulfilling his promise to deport illegal aliens.' The administration plans to use a 'full-of-government approach to ensure the efficient mass deportation of terrorist and criminal illegal aliens.' In Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' that is working its way through Congress, Republican lawmakers are set to give ICE a massive funding injection to help the agency finally carry out mass deportations. 'If that money goes out, the amount of people they can arrest and remove will be extraordinary,' Paul Hunker, who was formerly ICE's lead attorney in Dallas, told my colleague Nick Miroff. [Read: We're about to find out what mass deportation really looks like] For now, Trump is faking it until he makes it, with his administration doing everything it can to draw attention to its immigration tactics. Yesterday, federal agents handcuffed and forcibly removed Senator Alex Padilla of California just after he interrupted an immigration press conference featuring Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. In March, Noem had generated a previous viral moment when she traveled to the El Salvador megaprison where the administration has sent hundreds of supposed gang members, and gave remarks in front of shirtless, tattooed prisoners. The administration has even brought along right-wing media figures for its ICE arrests, producing further images of its immigration enforcement. Phil McGraw—the former host of Dr. Phil, who now hosts a show for MeritTV, a right-wing network he founded—was at ICE headquarters in L.A. the same day of the immigration sweeps in the city that prompted the protests last week. Consider, too, the shocking ways in which the administration has discussed the deportation campaign on social media. On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security posted an image styled like a World War II propaganda flyer, urging Americans to 'report all foreign invaders' to a DHS hotline. The White House's X account has created a meme about a crying woman in ICE custody, and uploaded a video of a deportee boarding a plane in clanking shackles with the caption 'ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight.' [Read: The gleeful cruelty of the White House X account] In one sense, all of this is just classic political spin. Instead of admitting that it's falling behind on one of its core promises, the White House is attempting to control the narrative. But the scale of reality-warping going on in this case is hard to fathom. Trump's actions are part of a larger way in which he has come to understand that he can sway the nation with the right viral imagery. When he was indicted on racketeering and other charges and forced to take a mug shot in 2023, Trump glowered into the camera instead of looking embarrassed or guilty, generating an image that became the subject of viral memes and campaign merchandise—and seemingly inspired his second presidential portrait, in which he strikes the same glowering pose. When he came within inches of dying during the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania last summer, he had the instincts to produce one of the most significant images in modern American history. The series of videos, pictures, and aggressive actions his administration has taken regarding deportations are of the same genre. Trump takes the reality in front of him and does what he can to create a perception closer to what he wants: in this case, one of fear and terror. This is authoritarian behavior. Trump is marshaling propaganda to mislead Americans about what is really happening. Other recent strongmen leaders, such as Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines and Viktor Orbán in Hungary, have used a similar playbook. If Trump can't remove as many immigrants as he promised, the president can still use his talent for warping perceptions to make it feel as though he is. Laws don't need to change for free speech to be chilled, for immigrants to flee, and for people to be afraid. Article originally published at The Atlantic

Miami Herald
18 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Popular brewery and distillery files Chapter 11 bankruptcy
A local taproom or brewery becomes a beloved part of the community. That's actually somewhat rare in the United States where we don't have a tradition of village pubs. There are some bars that fill that role becoming someplace where friends and neighbors come together. Related: New class action suit claims Costco is tricking you on prices A really good neighborhood bar becomes a place where people bring their families, fall in love, and celebrate life's big moments. When a community loses that, it can be devastating. It's very hard to replace a bar, or pub that has become a de facto community center. Real life may not have bars like "Cheers," but a good neighborhood tavern becomes a place where everybody knows your name. Losing that means more than when another Hooters or TGI Fridays closes. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Sure, everyone has their favorite place and the loss of any popular business can be a blow, but local pubs build connections with and between passengers unlike any other kind of business. It's just different to be a regular at one of these local businesses than to be known by the bartender at Chilis. The post-Covid period has been dark for local breweries, taprooms, and pubs, and that devastation has continued. When many businesses close or file for bankruptcy, it's solely on the merits of the business. That's not the case for Big Storm Brewing, which has been pulled down due to the financial woes of Boston Finance Group, which is owned by Big Storm partner Leo Govoni. A 2024 lawsuit alleged from 2009 to 2020, Govoni misappropriated over $100 million from special needs trusts, which are specialized irrevocable trusts established for the elderly and people with disabilities. That does not directly speak to the operations of the brewery and distillery which have a long history (at least by the standards of local breweries). More retail: Walmart CEO sounds alarm on a big problem for customersTarget makes a change that might scare Walmart, CostcoTop investor takes firm stance on troubled retail brandWalmart and Costco making major change affecting all customers "Founded in 2012, Big Storm Brewing Co. has embraced our tagline of 'Florida Craft Beer Forecast' by developing a dynamic lineup of Florida favorites like Tropic Pressure Golden Ale, steeped with hibiscus flowers, and Bromosa Tangerine IPA, brewed with all-natural tangerine puree," the company shared on its website. Big Storm also added a distillery to complement its regionally-sold beers, and to sell in its multiple taprooms. "In 2020, Big Storm Distillery was born with a mission to create world-class spirits with a local flair. Our Big Storm team are innovators at heart, always pushing boundaries, and not afraid to take risks. With a commitment to exceptional customer service, dedication to quality products, and the ambition to explore opportunities left unexplored, Big Storm has become a leader in the craft beer industry and beyond," the company added. While the fate of Big Storm had been unclear, its assets were transferred to a bankruptcy trustee by a federal bankruptcy court on June 5. That took control away from Govoni and put it in the hands of the trustee. Judge Roberta Colton found Govoni and Boston Financial Group liable for the missing $100 million as well as $20 million in interest. Big Storm has not closed its Clearwater, Fla taproom and its fate remains unclear. The court's actions put Big Storm Brewing under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, but under control of a trustee and not Govoni. The court could decide that the company has more value as a going concern than it does being sold off for parts. If that proves true, then it's more likely to be sold to an operator that wants to keep producing its beers and spirits. Related: Huge music retail chain closes all stores after 'bankruptcy' Big Storm has been very clear in its mission. "We're here to offer more than just a drink; we're sharing a slice of the Florida lifestyle with you, wherever you might be. Our mission? To transform each sip into a sun-drenched experience, a celebration of Floridian culture and zest. Our creations aren't just products; they're invitations to embrace the laid-back, sunny essence of Florida," it posted on its website. Big Storm's operations have continued and it still sells beer and spirits regionally and locally. It's likely to continue operating as long as it's seen as a positive to the estate. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.