How Counter-Narratives Emerge

[Dill]

July 10-12 White House Briefings-- following Hannity's show, Huckabee reminded us  that Hillary "sold 20% of US Uranium to Russia!" and floated "well known" connections between the DNC and the Ukrainian government which the press has "ignored." 

I find this interesting as a real time example of how a White House addresses a damaging story. As I write, Trump jr's actions are being re-described as either not all that bad or maybe even an attempt to ferret out a scam, while a massive number of "half facts" about Clinton malfeasance are shoehorned into an alternative collusion narrative. Both sides do it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/10/white-house-points-collusion-seeking-reporters-dnc/
“If you are looking for an example of a campaign coordinating with foreign country or a foreign source, look no further than the DNC which actually coordinated opposition research with the Ukrainian embassy,” said White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders.

http://www.headlineoftheday.com/2017/07/11/white-house-points-collusion-seeking-reporters-toward-the-democratic-national-committee/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/politics/dnc-ukraine-trump-material/index.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/11/did_the_clinton_campaign_collude_with_ukraine.html


Fox News is lending a strong helping hand. There are some Fox commentators who agree that T jr's actions were bad, inexcusable. But others, perhaps a majority, are responding to the story the way one would expect a WH press team to--massaging the narrative into false equivalences with what the other side does to protect the president. Hanity takes the lead, but in shows like The Five the tenor is again towards whataboutery.

I am curious as to whether others see this construction of a tailored-to-the-problem counter-narrative as a recognizable, describable tactic.  I am also curious as to the degree other see this as a Right wing phenomenon in contemporary politcs or do "both sides do it"?  Did the connection between the MSM and the DNC  or the OBama White House, for example, mirror the current relation between Fox and the Trump white house?

[Belsnickel]

The uranium thing has been thoroughly debunked. The fact that the White House is still pushing this story is just asinine.

[Dill]

(07-12-2017, 07:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The uranium thing has been thoroughly debunked. The fact that the White House is still pushing this story is just asinine.

Hannity continues to repeat it though, with a laundry list of other Clinton crimes.

This raises the question of audiences. He obviously gets no negative blowback from keeping debunked stories alive. E.g., he still maintains there was a "stand down order" at Benghazi. And he uses the term "fake news" more frequently than Trump.

Listening to him this week, and watching the press briefings, I am struck by the common talking points. It seems like Hannity had them first.

So I find these briefing surreal. The Press knows Huckabee is lying or disinforming and deflecting in statement after statement. But in terms of overall effect, that does not matter because the target audience is hearing the "truth" they want to believe.


.

[hollodero]

(07-12-2017, 07:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Hannity continues to repeat it though, with a laundry list of other Clinton crimes.

Yeah look, I feel there's an elephant in the room as possible answer to your questions, which is that the certain part of the right that is the Hannity audience in average is lower educated and in all probability less intelligent overall. A leftist isn't necessarily Einstein either, but what some on the right believe in large numbers is astonishing. The craziest, most debunked, most ridiculous stuff. They eat up everything completely unquestioned that fits the prejudice. That certainly is true for my country, and it seems true for yours. A certain part of the right is highly susceptible for demagogry, and there's just no comparably large group on the left. The majority isn't just quite as gullible.

Hannity is, of course, a demagogue. And even when a Hannity cheerer might realize every now and then that this show might be slightly biased, he quickly thinks, ah, CNN and Co. is far worse. Or at least the same. Of course, they really aren't. Albeit far from perfect in many instances, like everywhere.
Trump plays a similar game, just politically. But MSM equals democrats, and liberals are despicable. Just say anything to feed that, doesn't matter what. Works for that crowd. And far too many bystanders.

So, yes it's widely a right-wing phenomena, the lapses on the CNN side (which really isn't that left or agenda.driven in the first place) and company are more due to sensationalism. CNN is in no way a democratic outlet like FOX is a republican outlet. And no way Trump's conduct is in any way comparable to things Obama did, or Hillary for that matter. That so many take the "equally bad" stance in all of these instances and can actually hold that belief is astonishing to me. 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

They all do it, it's the "They did it and we can do it too" syndrome.

Remember during the Obama administration the constant blame thrown at Bush and during the Bush administration the constant blame thrown at Clinton?

What I find really funny is the hypocracy from both sides over the years and those who fall on either side eating up the crap these people spew...EVEN THOUGH IT'S CRAP!

[GMDino]

(07-12-2017, 07:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The uranium thing has been thoroughly debunked. The fact that the White House is still pushing this story is just asinine.

The vast majority of what comes out of the WH is asinine.

[GMDino]

(07-12-2017, 09:30 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: They all do it, it's the "They did it and we can do it too" syndrome.

Remember during the Obama administration the constant blame thrown at Bush and during the Bush administration the constant blame thrown at Clinton?

What I find really funny is the hypocracy from both sides over the years and those who fall on either side eating up the crap these people spew...EVEN THOUGH IT'S CRAP!

The passing the buck of blame is one thing...the lying about things that have been proven false is another.

This would be Obama blaming Bush for Benghazi or talking about 9/11 when asked about it.

[Dill]

(07-12-2017, 09:17 PM)hollodero Wrote:
Yeah look, I feel there's an elephant in the room as possible answer to your questions,

So, yes it's widely a right-wing phenomena, the lapses on the CNN side (which really isn't that left or agenda.driven in the first place) and company are more due to sensationalism. CNN is in no way a democratic outlet like FOX is a republican outlet. And no way Trump's conduct is in any way comparable to things Obama did, or Hillary for that matter. That so many take the "equally bad" stance in all of these instances and can actually hold that belief is astonishing to me. 

There is that elephant, certainly, though I think it is very much a creation of Right Wing media. It is not necessarily that people are less educated in the sense of quantity, but that they are miseducated. Many Trumpsters have quite a bit of information, in some cases detailed counter-versions of 20th century history. But they live in a media environment in which untruths just keep circulating. De-legitiminizing the MSM is a structural necessity here. Even if the MSM debunk the 20% Uranium scandal, they are disbelieved.

What I think I am seeing now is something more programmatic than usual, like there is a plan in place to manage bad news by designed whataboutery and counter-narratives. The goal is to create alternative stories which "equalize" whatever criticism are addressed to the Trump campaign. The MSM is JUST AS BAD as Fox/Hannity when it comes to misrepresentation and supporting one party, and Trump is NO WORSE than Obama or Hillary when it comes to scandals or foreign policy or whatever. If a Trump operative met with a Russian agent well then so did a Clinton operative. If an alternative narrative or set of alternative facts can be put into circulation, then one must choose between RWmedia and MSM. And you can't trust the MSM because of their liberal bias, right? So the goal is increasingly to produce the alternative narrative, just as tobacco companies used to pay for "studies" showing the link between smoking and lung cancer inconclusive and Exxon used to pay for studies disputing anthropogenic climate change.

This problem should disappear when one raises the issue of journalism standards and accountability. It is usually possible to choose between narratives by referring them to vetted facts and demanding logical consistency. And while every news organization can make errors reporting, quality organizations penalize errors. People lose positions and jobs. Errors are retracted. Problem is, the standards are now in question as well, as themselves "liberal bias." It is hard to get people to move beyond trading anecdotes, sound bites and single cases to examine larger patterns.

[Dill]

(07-12-2017, 09:30 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: They all do it, it's the "They did it and we can do it too" syndrome.

Remember during the Obama administration the constant blame thrown at Bush and during the Bush administration the constant blame thrown at Clinton?

What I find really funny is the hypocracy from both sides over the years and those who fall on either side eating up the crap these people spew...EVEN THOUGH IT'S CRAP!

Yes, blame was thrown at Bush.  Now walk this a step further with two questions:

What was Bush blamed for?  And did he do what he was blamed for?

Same questions for Obama and Clinton, but I'd like to hear what you say about Bush first.

[hollodero]

(07-12-2017, 10:41 PM)Dill Wrote: There is that elephant, certainly, though I think it is very much a creation of Right Wing media. It is not necessarily that people are less educated in the sense of quantity, but that they are miseducated. Many Trumpsters have quite a bit of information, in some cases detailed counter-versions of 20th century history. But they live in a media environment in which untruths just keep circulating. De-legitiminizing the MSM is a structural necessity here. Even if the MSM debunk the 20% Uranium scandal, they are disbelieved.

In my eyes, by finding these ecxuses and explanations you implicitly confirm a certain kind of dumbness of the "bubble people". Not trying to be arrogant, but that's what it is. The whole blaming Murdoch thing implies there are the Murdochs and the not so bright sheep.
And I agree on that - for a certain portion. Whoever trusts Hannity, for example.

(07-12-2017, 10:41 PM)Dill Wrote:
What I think I am seeing now is something more programmatic than usual, like there is a plan in place to manage bad news by designed whataboutery and counter-narratives.

These are unusual times.
And defending Trump gets harder by the day. He just says the most moronic nonsense. As if he deliberately wanted to test the outlet's loyalty. These are emergency plans, implemented quite disciplined.
Which is why, I said it before, I believe at some point FOX will turn on Trump, for there simply remains no other way, and then there's that. What else could bring an end to this.

(07-12-2017, 10:41 PM)Dill Wrote: The goal is to create alternative stories which "equalize" whatever criticism are addressed to the Trump campaign. The MSM is JUST AS BAD as Fox/Hannity when it comes to misrepresentation and supporting one party, and Trump is NO WORSE than Obama or Hillary when it comes to scandals or foreign policy or whatever. If a Trump operative met with a Russian agent well then so did a Clinton operative. If an alternative narrative or set of alternative facts can be put into circulation, then one must choose between RWmedia and MSM. And you can't trust the MSM because of their liberal bias, right? So the goal is increasingly to produce the alternative narrative, just as tobacco companies used to pay for "studies" showing the link between smoking and lung cancer inconclusive and Exxon used to pay for studies disputing anthropogenic climate change.

This problem should disappear when one raises the issue of journalism standards and accountability. It is usually possible to choose between narratives by referring them to vetted facts and demanding logical consistency. And while every news organization can make errors reporting, quality organizations penalize errors. People lose positions and jobs. Errors are retracted. Problem is, the standards are now in question as well, as themselves "liberal bias." It is hard to get people to move beyond trading anecdotes, sound bites and single cases to examine larger patterns.

Yeah, logic and consistency have become leftist ideology.

[JustWinBaby]

I mean....there's a truth bash to the head, but I think it would be lost here.

[ballsofsteel]

(07-12-2017, 09:30 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: They all do it, it's the "They did it and we can do it too" syndrome.

Remember during the Obama administration the constant blame thrown at Bush and during the Bush administration the constant blame thrown at Clinton?

What I find really funny is the hypocracy from both sides over the years and those who fall on either side eating up the crap these people spew...EVEN THOUGH IT'S CRAP!

No, I don't remember that at all. You make it sound like each party did it evenly. That is/was a Republican specialty, blaming the previous administration. As far as " throwing constant blame" , the right did it way more than the left, not even close.

[hollodero]

(07-13-2017, 03:38 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I mean....there's a truth bash to the head, but I think it would be lost here.

No it would not. How provocative does one need to be to get a sharp response :) Or any. Please bash away.

[Vlad]

(07-12-2017, 07:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The uranium thing has been thoroughly debunked. The fact that the White House is still pushing this story is just asinine.

I had to laugh at the double standard here.

[xxlt]

(07-12-2017, 07:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Hannity continues to repeat it though, with a laundry list of other Clinton crimes.

This raises the question of audiences. He obviously gets no negative blowback from keeping debunked stories alive. E.g., he still maintains there was a "stand down order" at Benghazi. And he uses the term "fake news" more frequently than Trump.

Listening to him this week, and watching the press briefings, I am struck by the common talking points. It seems like Hannity had them first.

So I find these briefing surreal. The Press knows Huckabee is lying or disinforming and deflecting in statement after statement. But in terms of overall effect, that does not matter because the target audience is hearing the "truth" they want to believe.


.

I think you are giving the WH way to much credit to think they would said SH talking points. Far more likely, Sarah and the Queen watch Hannity's show and decide what they wish to repeat. So someone is giving someone talking points, just the other way around.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2017, 10:47 AM)Vlad Wrote: I had to laugh at the double standard here.

What double standard? Is there another spokesperson for the head of our executive branch pushing a different false narrative I am neglecting?

[xxlt]

(07-12-2017, 09:30 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: They all do it, it's the "They did it and we can do it too" syndrome.

Remember during the Obama administration the constant blame thrown at Bush and during the Bush administration the constant blame thrown at Clinton?

What I find really funny is the hypocracy from both sides over the years and those who fall on either side eating up the crap these people spew...EVEN THOUGH IT'S CRAP!

No, I don't remember Bush blaming Clinton for the best economic conditions for the most people in the last 40 years. I don't remember Obama attacking Bush either, although I do remember his surrogates saying Bush left him a dumpster fire, and that was true. Obama cleaned up the mess and Trump simultaneously blamed him for leaving a mess and then took credit for the stock market about 4 seconds later. But yeah, they all do it.

[xxlt]

(07-12-2017, 10:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: The passing the buck of blame is one thing...the lying about things that have been proven false is another.

This would be Obama blaming Bush for Benghazi or talking about 9/11 when asked about it.

Pretty sure the guy in the red hat is a member of the MB.

[xxlt]

(07-13-2017, 11:39 AM)xxlt Wrote:



Pretty sure the guy in the red hat is a member of the MB.

His real golden moment is about 3:35. I'd like to get to the bottom of it too!!!!!!

[Dill]

(07-13-2017, 11:28 AM)xxlt Wrote: I think you are giving the WH way to much credit to think they would said SH talking points. Far more likely, Sarah and the Queen watch Hannity's show and decide what they wish to repeat. So someone is giving someone talking points, just the other way around.

I think Hannity, Rush, Levin and a few others on the job 24/7 countering MSM stories. The WH then follows the counters. There may be some direct communication between staff as well. But I was not describing the WH as the source of the strategy necessarily. 

Also, part of my point is that, despite the few commentators who say Trump and Republicans should "own up" to what is happening, prominent individuals and programs continue to react to the news like a White House news team. That is, they are not behaving like journalists, but rather WH's own press team, always in damage control mode.

I don't recall the degree of whataboutery in previous administrations that we are seeing with Trump's. That's one reason why I think it has become a conscious, deliberate tactic. Also it works for the Trumpsters in a way that it does not for those outside that bubble.