Capitol Hearings: Competing Narratives

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-03-2021, 08:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: Here's what I see as the problem. These GOP members did not vote against funding capitol police. They voted against increasing the enacted level of funding for this year. Which, honestly, is quite different from "literally defunding the police".

Now why the GOP members (also AOC and Tlaib) voted no on that increase, I do not know. Maybe for nefarious reasons, maybe just because it appears to be a political act with little actual merit. But your meme, as it stands, is not really factual. That much seems apparent from a quick glance at the real event.

After the last two years he thinks a disagreement over the wording of a bill somehow makes the GOP the anti law enforcement party instead of he and his fellow Dems who've been vilifying law enforcement for around two years, if not longer (definitely longer in his case).  It's all out of the far left playbook where they tell you up is down, dry is wet and Dems appreciate law enforcement. Oh, GM likes law enforcement too, he just posts endless negative articles about them.  

[Dill]

(08-01-2021, 07:54 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Wasn't Rachel Maddow forced to do the same thing?

I may have the details mixed up.  I'm not sure if that was her position, or if it was the judge's ruling.  But I'm pretty sure one or other got the case thrown out because of almost identical logic (This is exaggerated entertainment, not scrictly the facts.)

Rachel and Tucker were both sued for defamation--Rachel by OANN for saying OANN was "literally paid Russian propaganda" and Tucker for claiming Karen McDougal sought to "extort" money from Trump and then to "defame" him. 

Rachel's claim was based on the fact that OANN actually shared staff with the state-owned Russian News Agency Sputnik--i.e., had reporters literally paid by the Russian gov. OANN did not dispute the revelation, but argued Maddow's statement was false because OANN itself, the news corp. was not "literally" paid by the Russian government. Tucker's commentary shifted responsibility for the McDougal scandal from Trump to McDougal, after Trump's efforts to suppress the story by buying and killing the story failed, so McDougal claimed slander. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/02/09/msnbc-rachel-maddow-awarded-legal-fees-after-oan-lawsuit/4447175001/
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

In both cases, the judge ruled that there is an important distinction between news and commentary, and that viewers should be expected to know that in the latter, one gets commentator opinion, conjecture and hyperbole as well as "facts." But there are important differences in the cases. MSNBC did not defend Rachel's statements as "entertainment." And OANN had to pay MSNBC 247,000 in legal fees for the frivolous suit. And the judge in Carlson's case referred to his "reputation" as an important factor in discounting what he says, as did Fox itself. That's where the "entertainment" factor--the so-called "Fox Defense"-- comes in. And McDougal, indeed slandered, and had to pay nothing.

For anyone unsure about the differences between Maddow and Carlson commentary, I offer the following:

Rachel typically begins discussing some historical precedent, like a SCOTUS ruling or a scandal, or a policy that
failed or was rescinded, for at least 10 minutes.

She then links that precedent to some current issue as illuminating back story, and articulates what she
takes to be the legal or policy principle that citizens need to understand.

Finally she brings on an "expert" or two, and first asks them if she has explained the legal/policy aspect of
the issue correctly. If she is not, then she is corrected, but usually her take is confirmed. Then rational discussion proceeds
on that factual ground. This looks to me like respect for journalistic standards by someone who takes seriously the press's
role in informing citizens.

She also has segments on other topics on the same show. E.g., if she began with a walk through of the legal grounds
for a current indictment of the Trump organization, she may then shift to a panel explaining/discussing the reasons for
the CDC's changes in masking/distancing policies. The focus is on informing and questioning.

Tucker proceeds rather differently, often beginning with an editorial about topics like "freedom" and how current Fed policies on
one issue or another deprive YOU of it and none of us should have to do something just because the gov. says it is "right." This
may be focused on COVID guidelines (The vaccine should sell itself without gov. help, if it really works!) or the 2nd Amendment or election fraud. He is a master of the "Is your mother still a *****?" style John Stewart parodied: "Not saying your mother IS a *****--just a question!" 

This may be followed by a panel including at least one very angry person, and we'll learn about "lies" and "hypocrisy." E.g., Fauci may be revealed as a "charlatan" for urging Delta-related changes in masking policy. The MSM will be faulted for disseminating his and CDC disinformation, or "hiding" something nefarious about virus stats. Lots of name-calling. This does not look to me like respect for journalistic standards by someone who takes seriously the press's role in informing citizens. (His show has become ground zero for disseminating COVID disinformation.)

So I can see why Fox might use the "entertainment" defense for Tucker, but I'd be surprised if Maddox accepted it, or MSNBC on her behalf.

PS I urge unfamiliar viewers of the commentators in question to test my description by viewing the openings of randomly selected episodes of each's show.

[Dill]

(07-31-2021, 08:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: I mean, you debated here with distincly "other-side people" for a long time now, about impeachments and then some. Did you never feel how inherently in vain all these efforts were? Do you think that is because carefully crafted counter-narratives weren't all that bad, and if they were just a little worse you'd have had more success? Because I don't. I think it has nothing to do with them at all, as stated before many times.

Starting from the bottom of your post: 

How are we measuring “vain”? Rather differently, I think. I don’t usually expect someone in this forum to “convert.” That’s not a realistic standard or my daily goal. Most of my argument/interrogation here is in research/diagnostic mode, trying to figure what and how the other side actually thinks, what their sources really are, and are not, looking for patterns. Info I could not get from books or Hannity or newspaper articles.
 
And even if people don’t agree with my take on some hot issue, I do find that often, “the other side” does not have a comparable response, an effective rebuttal. If someone decides I “can’t be reasoned with,” and turns tail without that rebuttal, I don’t see that my efforts were in vain, even by the narrow metric of “individual persuasion.” And there is a collective effect here, as well, as I am not the only one here rebutting disinformation. So a penumbra of effects here, some positive, around our individual and collective discourses that go quite beyond the individual persuasion in the moment. Discourse with someone like yourself, who demonstrates above average knowledge of issues and plays by the rules, is (for my part) less agonistic and more about “testing” ideas. So in your case, if I’ve failed to at least give you pause, that becomes a diagnostic moment, where I look for answers—what’s missing in his picture of events that I could supply; have I missed something that he sees? (E.g., some of my comments above about impeachment and diplomacy do frame the problem as explaining foreign policy “right” to the other side, and THEN they will get it. My lapse was to leave it at that.)
 
The ”vain effort” that concerns me at the moment is my inability to persuade my fellow amateur social scientists, that (to use a family systems metaphor) the “dysfunctional family” of RWM, politicians, base, and faux independents ought to be the focus of our analyses as a total structure, not the individual family members who, regardless of progress here, are always going to revert to toxic politics/behaviors when they leave our forum-clinic to go back home, where everyone is still tip-toeing around the abusive father, while mom and older siblings enforce accommodation for survival, united against the doctors and social services and other "outsiders".

[Dill]

(07-31-2021, 08:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Democrats might be a little stricter (as I said, to me one side clearly is worse), but there's enough counterexamples. Whatever happened to Cuomo, by the way, is this already done and forgotten? That Stacey Abrams did not concede even though she lost in a certified election does not matter much. Even though Trump gets roasted for the same thing (more than just that thing, but still). That is a double standard, isn't it? Maxine Waters pleads for riots if a court doesn't reach the desired verdict. Neglecting what could be perceived as a call for violence, wasn't prejudging a case in that manner real bad when Trump did it? Or calling the courts biased in general, for that matter.

This could turn into one of my lists, but I don't feel like doing that. Double standards are common place, imho.

Remember, the question on the dock is not whether double standards are common place or even whether “both sides” deploy them. The question I raised was “do Trump media constructed alternative narratives make a difference—how or how not?” I say they MAINTAIN RW Trump politics at the moment. And after your response, the added question now is whether and/how double standards fit the answer(s) to that primary question. If we find that Abrams did not concede her election loss, do we also find it was for the same reason as Trump, with the same consequences even for local, not to mention national consequences, with the same party and MSM support? 

Cuomo: the issue for my question is not only whether Cuomo engaged in scandalous behavior, but whether it will indeed be “done and forgotten.” How will Dem national leadership and the MSM respond to him, as well as Dem voters. Will we see Biden and Harris and Senate and House leaders circling the wagons to defend one of their own against a “witch hunt”? Or deafening silence?  Will Rachel and Chris Hayes rail against GOP “hypocrisy” and revive the appropriate Trump scandals in a coordinated Tu quoque alternative narrative? Here is indeed a test case for the thesis that accountability is different in each party, that the Dems are not a mirror-image regime party with media component.
 
Recap: I said that double standards DO matter, for everyone. The “other side’s” are the primary driver of anger for each side. If I understand you, you are saying that “both sides” provide examples of DSs and look past their own side’s—though you grant, as an aside, that one side looks past rather greater and more blatant violations than the other. 

For me, that’s not an aside. That is the point and the problem, the main reason why the US risks falling ever deeper into authoritarian politics.  We don't resist that fall by constantly noting that, technically, "both sides do it," and stopping there. That enables   the constant push for false equivalence, undercutting accurate analysis by leaving out critical details.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-03-2021, 11:42 AM)GMDino Wrote: Long story short they didn't plan on paying overtime that was incurred after a bunch of whiney people did some damage to property and officers...and tried to close enough to hang the VP.   

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2021/07/09/how-congressional-republicans-maneuver-against-funding-the-capitol-police-for-january-6/?sh=f0b2ee04857e

So now the GOP is blocking paying them...but *might* if they drop other items.

The GOP is actively not paying for work done.  Not funding the police.  It's a supplemental bill and they won't vote for it.

Literally not funding.




...



The GOP in the house are literally playing with the funding of the capitol police.

But because "the left" said some bad stuff and hurt people's feelings it will get fluffed off some as "garbage".

Heck, I get lumped in with the "defund the police" narrative for some reason when I'm defending them getting funded.

The issue on the board will always be one person have a personal and emotional response to me not matter what the facts are and coming back with the same boring tropes and "insults" but not caring about the facts.

But it's no skin off my nose.  I'm over it. 

Why are you still arguing this? It’s done. It’s funded.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-03-2021, 06:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why are you still arguing this?  It’s done. It’s funded.

Why are you asking question you already know the answer to? 

[Dill]

(07-31-2021, 08:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yep, pretty much. These things you mentioned sure were used and played a part in getting to this point. And they will still be cited plenty as justification. But I don't believe it's necessary to even perpetuate them. They do that on their own now in people's heads, and they became merely speech bubbles now. Just to clarify, of course Hillary crime families and Biden crime families will still be used to fuel anger, but you could use anything you wish for that at this point. Whoever democrats pick for president next time, this person will be part of a crime family, or done some other unspeakable things, and if a spirit whispered it into Hannity's ear it's as good an explanation as any. People want the anger, the explanations are just window-dressing.

You don’t believe it is necessary to maintain counter-narratives through recurring ideological crises, and to keep the primary one going about MSM untrustworthiness? Couldn’t one argue that Trump’s failure to get re-elected indicates how precarious is the boundary between political success and failure, and that a great part of that failure was a failure of his alternative narrative that the election was “rigged” and “Sleepy Joe” lacked competence and energy—a failure resulting largely from Trump’s own sabotage of that narrative?

What if, right after 1/6, Fox, OANN and all the various RW blogs had folded shop? Would polling on the Big Lie and Trump’s fitness for office be unchanged now in July? Would there be Monkey Shine recounts in AZ still going on? The nationwide, GOP-coordinated push to suppress the vote--are people "doing that on their own"? You grant that alternative narratives “played a part” in this possibly permanent toxic turn in US politics, but assume it is not necessary to maintain said narratives through recurring ideological crises, and especially to keep the primary one going about MSM untrustworthiness?

Alternative narratives may be false, but they are never, and cannot ever be based upon, “anything you wish for.” The ”match” between dominant narrative and alternative is critical—the latter always evolving in direct response to the former, taking its contours. The attacks only seem random when one is not following the “contours.” There is a reason why we have not yet heard about the Obama Crime family, though no doubt evidence for such has been fervently wished for. And Biden crime family revelations won’t shore up the anti-mask/vaccination narrative.
 
When you separate behavior from narrative grounding now, as if individuals can continue to operate independently of guidance and orchestration and previously operative examples and standards, the move is rather similar* to what Trump supporters do when they dismiss all manner of well-grounded Trump critique as simply “Trump hate” and don’t even bother to address the critique, partly on the assumption their opposition is just generating criticism on their own, independently of anything Trump actually does.
 
Were the MSM the only game in town, why shouldn’t we expect a steady retreat of authoritarian politics underpinned by widely believed conspiracies? If I am wrong about the critical maintenance role of RWM constructed alternative narratives, then why tremendous private investment in their production? 
 https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/09/the-big-money-behind-the-big-lie

*Similar only in the sense you present individuals as somehow generating “outputs” without actual “inputs.” Not similar in dismissive intent.

[GMDino]

(08-03-2021, 06:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why are you still arguing this?  It’s done. It’s funded.

I was responding, not arguing, to a comment about why it challenged in the first place by all but one GOP member and the "reasoning" they were using to defund the police.  That it passed in the meantime shouldn't didn't change that conversation.

And to the fact that it was a fact and not some bad words that hurts people's feelings.

I may on occasion speak of things that happened in the past and discuss them.  Hope that will be okay with everyone.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-03-2021, 09:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was responding, not arguing, to a comment about why it challenged in the first place by all but one GOP member and the "reasoning" they were using to defund the police.  That it passed in the meantime shouldn't didn't change that conversation.

And to the fact that it was a fact and not some bad words that hurts people's feelings.

I may on occasion speak of things that happened in the past and discuss them.  Hope that will be okay with everyone.

It was one part of a process. There was compromise and it was resolved.

[GMDino]

(08-03-2021, 09:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It was one part of a process. There was compromise and it was resolved.

Aye.  Thanks.

The "process" included 205 members voting against it (not funding) in order to cut funding elsewhere.

Thanks again.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-03-2021, 09:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Aye.  Thanks.

The "process" included 205 members voting against it (not funding) in order to cut funding elsewhere.

Thanks again.

And it included all Republican senators and all but five (6 Democrats) in the house voting for it. What exactly is your complaint? You didn’t like which day they voted for it?

[GMDino]

(08-03-2021, 10:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And it included all Republican senators and all but five (6 Democrats) in the house voting for it. What exactly is your complaint?  You didn’t like which day they voted for it?

Hmmmm....

I posted a fact that 205 members of the GOP voted against funding the police.

SSF cried and whined that that was "garbage" because "my ilk" TALKED about defunding the police.

I pointed out that in fact the GOP voted against actual funding.

The entire discussion (I posted twice about it before you asked) was about it being a factual act vs something SSF heard that hurt his feelings.

But NOW  is seems you want to  argue about it by changing it to me complaining...which I didn't do.  I simply said it happened.  "The left" didn't vote against it for any reason...and they haven't.


I didn't "complain".  I'm glad they finally passed it.

Nice to see you're still around though!  Sincerely!

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

Dill I thought we agreed you weren’t going to write books in these threads anymore?


It’s also funny to see parrots picking up the talking points so aggressively. Psaki says no u and now everyone’s saying it.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-03-2021, 10:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Hmmmm....

I posted a fact that 205 members of the GOP voted against funding the police.

SSF cried and whined that that was "garbage" because "my ilk" TALKED about defunding the police.

I pointed out that in fact the GOP voted against actual funding.

The entire discussion (I posted twice about it before you asked) was about it being a factual act vs something SSF heard that hurt his feelings.

But NOW  is seems you want to  argue about it by changing it to me complaining...which I didn't do.  I simply said it happened.  "The left" didn't vote against it for any reason...and they haven't.


I didn't "complain".  I'm glad they finally passed it.

Nice to see you're still around though!  Sincerely!

Thank you. My son is an equipment manager for the Bengals now so I’m paying a little more attention to the Bengals part of the board so I can keep up on things. And to be honest, a lot of this bores the hell out of me now. We need more religion talk. I enjoy that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-03-2021, 10:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Hmmmm....

I posted a fact that 205 members of the GOP voted against funding the police.

Not "the police", no.  Also, why did they vote no?  Is there any context to it that your silly meme failed to mention?

Quote:SSF cried and whined that that was "garbage" because "my ilk" TALKED about defunding the police.

No crying and whining, just pointing out facts.  You hate law enforcement and your posting history proves it.  Dems hate law enforcement and their rhetoric and actual defunding prove it.  Dems have defunded police departments in numerous cities.  Remember, facts don't care about your bullshit memes. 

Quote:I pointed out that in fact the GOP voted against actual funding.

Again, why?  

Quote:The entire discussion (I posted twice about it before you asked) was about it being a factual act vs something SSF heard that hurt his feelings.

Again, quit projecting your butthurt onto me.  You're a chronic hater of law enforcement who attempts to portray himself as the opposite, in vain.  In this sense you are the perfect encapsulation of your political party.  You loathe law enforcement until you can score political points off pretending to care about them.  My pointing out this obvious fact isn't hurt feeling, it's a simple statement of fact.  

Quote:But NOW  is seems you want to  argue about it by changing it to me complaining...which I didn't do.  I simply said it happened.  "The left" didn't vote against it for any reason...and they haven't.

The "left" has defunded law enforcement and vilified them as agent of a racist system who start every day chomping at the bit to murder "people of color".  Your attempts to flip this script are utterly transparent and utterly devoid of a basis in fact.  No one outside of your bubble is buying it.

Quote:I didn't "complain".  I'm glad they finally passed it.

I'll bet.  

Quote:Nice to see you're still around though!  Sincerely!

Believe me, no one missed you, at all.  Well, they may have missed the low hanging fruit.  

[GMDino]

(08-04-2021, 01:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not "the police", no.  Also, why did they vote no?  Is there any context to it that your silly meme failed to mention?



No crying and whining, just pointing out facts.  You hate law enforcement and your posting history proves it.  Dems hate law enforcement and their rhetoric and actual defunding prove it.  Dems have defunded police departments in numerous cities.  Remember, facts don't care about your bullshit memes. 



Again, why?  



Again, quit projecting your butthurt onto me.  You're a chronic hater of law enforcement who attempts to portray himself as the opposite, in vain.  In this sense you are the perfect encapsulation of your political party.  You loathe law enforcement until you can score political points off pretending to care about them.  My pointing out this obvious fact isn't hurt feeling, it's a simple statement of fact.  



The "left" has defunded law enforcement and vilified them as agent of a racist system who start every day chomping at the bit to murder "people of color".  Your attempts to flip this script are utterly transparent and utterly devoid of a basis in fact.  No one outside of your bubble is buying it.



I'll bet.  



Believe me, no one missed you, at all.  Well, they may have missed the low hanging fruit.  

Reading your tired old posts is like watching Smokey and the Bandit 3...the same old lines and they just aren't funny anymore.  Just boring.

But at least you never give up playing your character like you believe it.

[Dill]

(08-03-2021, 10:13 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Dill I thought we agreed you weren’t going to write books in these threads anymore?

It’s also funny to see parrots picking up the talking points so aggressively. Psaki says no u and now everyone’s saying it.

"No u"? ? ? 

You are looking at something around the corner and laughing and making faces, but I can't see what u r looking at.

[Dill]

(08-02-2021, 07:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue is that the viewers don't understand all of this. The average viewers of these channels can't differentiate between what is news and what is editorializing. It's the same problem we see with print news or news on the web. The average person is unable to differentiate between fact and opinion. All of this being said, a good general rule of thumb in all of this is that a written story on the websites for these channels will be a little more trustworthy than their on air stuff.

I'll still stick to the wire agencies, though.

Fox's slogan--"We report: you decide"--seems to embrace a distinction between "fact" and "opinion," and to claim that focus on facts is what drives that channel's programs.  

And I repeatedly hear Trump supporters/defenders who complain about "liberal bias" demanding that news focus on facts,
or that commentary be better labelled, and similar charges that news "consumers" cannot distinguish between fact and opinion.
Hannity frequently reminds us that he is "up front" about the fact that what he is doing is commentary while those commentators at
CNN are not. 

Just as a point of discussion, I'd like to suggest that supposing there is some clear distinction between "facts" on the one side and something called "opinion" on the other may be part of the disinformation problem.  And I'd question that especially if it leads to distinction between sources such that there are some we can "trust" and others we can't, if that then enables a habitual detour around critical analysis. 

I believe there are indeed some sources more untrustworthy than others--Fox commentary being an example--but I would never dismiss any individual news item simply because of the source.* I.e., I would never regard a news item as untrustworthy BECAUSE it came from Fox. Each such item has to be vetted on its own terms, and be deemed untrustworthy for the same reason I might find an item from a trusted source untrustworthy, if its author failed to vet sources adequately or drew conclusions not sustained by evidence presented. 

*Not implying that is what you were doing or promoting. You would not and were not. Just adding a point/question to your point. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-04-2021, 09:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: Reading your tired old posts is like watching Smokey and the Bandit 3...the same old lines and they just aren't funny anymore.  Just boring.

But at least you never give up playing your character like you believe it.

The level of self delusion required for you to hurl that accusation at anyone is staggering.  But thanks for coming back, we had a significant decrease in the amount of LEO hate threads while you were gone.  I look forward to endlessly negative stories about police while claiming you support law enforcement.  

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

Republicans at fault for the suicide of 3 policemen officers that were involved in the biggest insurrectionist event since the Civil War.