How Counter-Narratives Emerge

[Vlad]

(07-13-2017, 06:46 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: 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.

[Dill]

(07-13-2017, 11:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What double standard? Is there another spokesperson for the head of our executive branch pushing a different false narrative I am neglecting?

(07-13-2017, 09:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: No it would not. How provocative does one need to be to get a sharp response :) Or any. Please bash away.

If I am correct in my assessment of the "counter-narrative" strategy, which systematically presents false equivalencies, then we should not be surprised if the targets of that strategy see a double standard in that thesis. After all, one goal of the strategy is to convince people that nothing new or different or qualitatively worse is occurring under the Trump presidency. To say otherwise is just more "liberal hypocrisy."

Though I don't have it completely formulated yet, I am posing my counter narrative thesis as a social scientist would--i.e., as a hypothesis to be tested against actual cases. The point of doing it that way is to avoid simply trading anecdotes, and instead putting news reports and commentary in an analytic framework which allows for quantitative and qualitative comparison.

Certainly every White House puts out a counter narrative to bad press--but not always and every day. And I don't recall Bush or Obama press secretaries relying systematically on "what abouts." Partisans have long done that on social media, but rarely have official spokespersons, and to the degree we have seen in the last week at every press briefing. That the tactic is accepted by a segment of the audience signals the rejection of several journalistic conventions and logical standards, or unawareness of them. The insistence that MSM organizations put out "fake news" daily, is also an element of this counter-narrative strategy, which, for the aforementioned segment, levels the playing field. NYT journalists are not any more trustworthy than a Trump tweet.
 
If I am correct that this is largely a right wing, Trump/Fox phenomenon (though it does not include all right wing news sources at the moment), then we might see a few anecdotes tossed up to "prove" both sides do it. If these hold up to comparison then the hypothesis is disproved. If not, then for the moment the thesis appears sound.  So I am hoping someone out there will set out to prove it wrong, rather than just saying it is. Doing only the latter, at this point, supports my thesis.

[Dill]

(07-13-2017, 11:39 AM)xxlt Wrote: Pretty sure the guy in the red hat is a member of the MB.

Why wasn't Obama in the Oval Office on 9/11? Was he out vacationing as he always did?

You won't find anyone in the MSM media working on that story because they always gave Obama a pass.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2017, 01:15 PM)Dill Wrote: If I am correct in my assessment of the "counter-narrative" strategy, which systematically presents false equivalencies, then we should not be surprised if the targets of that strategy see a double standard in that thesis. After all, one goal of the strategy is to convince people that nothing new or different or qualitatively worse is occurring under the Trump presidency. To say otherwise is just more "liberal hypocrisy."

I am posing my counter narrative thesis as a social scientist would--i.e., as a hypothesis to be tested against actual cases--though I don't have it completely formulated yet. The point of doing it that way is to avoid simply trading anecdotes, and instead putting news reports and commentary in an analytic framework which allows for quantitative and qualitative comparison.

Certainly every White House puts out a counter narrative to bad press--but not always and every day. And I don't recall Bush or Obama press secretaries relying systematically on "what abouts." Partisans have long done that on social media, but rarely have official spokespersons, and to the degree we have seen in the last week at every press briefing. That the tactic is accepted by a segment of the audience signals the rejection of several journalistic conventions and logical standards, or unawareness of them. The insistence that MSM organizations put out "fake news" daily, is also an element of this counter-narrative strategy, which, for the aforementioned segment, levels the playing field. NYT journalists are not any more trustworthy than a Trump tweet.
 
If I am correct that this is largely a right wing, Trump/Fox phenomenon (though it does not include all right wing news sources at the moment), then we might see a few anecdotes tossed up to "prove" both sides do it. If these hold up to comparison then the hypothesis is disproved. If not, then for the moment the thesis appears sound.  So I am hoping someone out there will set out to prove it wrong, rather than just saying it is. Doing only the latter, at this point, supports my thesis.

I think what also makes this a different scenario is that previous administrations have tried to deflect or pivot when faced with bad press. They try to change the story to be what they want it to be. That is the most common technique in politics and while it appears unethical to an outside observer, it is the nature of the beast. In this administration we see outright lies or refusals to answer. If you hear any former communications staffer, left or right, talk about their job in the White House they will tell you that those are two things you absolutely cannot do.

What we're seeing has to become a question like the chicken and the egg on a couple of levels. Has the hostility by the press towards Trump caused the issue, or has behavior from the Trump communications team dating back to the campaign (which was notoriously bad) caused the hostility? Either way, it has snowballed to a place that is damaging to our society. We also have the question of whether certain FNC persons are being fed WH talking points, or whether the WH is parroting them. If you listen to the messaging between them it is far too similar to be coincidental, especially when you take into account the timing. Between that and the way the WHPC is being treated it is like a creation of state media.

[Vlad]

(07-13-2017, 11:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What double standard? Is there another spokesperson for the head of our executive branch pushing a different false narrative I am neglecting?

The fact that the White House is still pushing this story is just asinine.

You really don't get what I was alluding to?

I just don't believe I've ever read any of your posts in which you stated how asinine it is that democrats and the media were still pushing this Russian story.
Hey, if the persistent push of this story plants into peoples minds that Trumps election was somehow tainted or illegitimate then lets just stick with it.

And who "thoroughly debunked"  the Clinton/Russian Uranium deal?  Snopes?

You know as well as I do that had it been Trump cutting a Uranium deal with Russia, the scrutiny from the left would be harsh an unrelenting....as from the Republican establishment as well.

 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2017, 01:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Why wasn't Obama in the Oval Office on 9/11? Was he out vacationing as he always did?

You won't find anyone in the MSM media working on that story because they always gave Obama a pass.

Well?  Was he in the White House?  Hmmmm?

[Vlad]

(07-12-2017, 11:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: And defending Trump gets harder by the day. He just says the most moronic nonsense.

Hope you're speaking for yourself.
I wasn't aware leftists ever defended Trump.

Regarding Trumps comments  "Conservatives don't take Trump literally, but they do take him seriously...liberals take him literally but not seriously."

[GMDino]

(07-13-2017, 01:38 PM)Vlad Wrote: And who "thoroughly debunked"  the Clinton/Russian Uranium deal?  Snopes?

You know as well as I do that had it been Trump cutting a Uranium deal with Russia, the scrutiny from the left would be harsh an unrelenting....as from the Republican establishment as well.

 

Everyone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.5d14828b79f0

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump-claims--falsely--that-clinton-gave-russia-20-of-us-uranium.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/a-false-corruption-claim/

At least everyone who understands facts and how those groups work.

The easiest fallacy to disprove is that she "sold 20% of our Uranium".

Then it all falls apart from there.

To be fair though *IF* Trump had done such a deal it would have failed spectacularly and he would have blamed someone else.

[Vlad]

(07-12-2017, 10:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: The vast majority of what comes out of the WH is asinine.

Even if thats true they're way outnumbered because the vast majority of what comes from the democrat party is asinine.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2017, 01:38 PM)Vlad Wrote: The fact that the White House is still pushing this story is just asinine.

You really don't get what I was alluding to?

I don't.

(07-13-2017, 01:38 PM)Vlad Wrote: I just don't believe I've ever read any of your posts in which you stated how asinine it is that democrats and the media were still pushing this Russian story.
Hey, if the persistent push of this story plants into peoples minds that Trumps election was somehow tainted or illegitimate then lets just stick with it.

Actually, I have plenty of posts talking about how I am tired of the media talking about it and would like them to just let Mueller do his job. But, this is also a big false equivalency. The false narrative about the uranium deal has been proven to be untrue, whereas the situation with Russia's influence on our election and any possible collusion is still under investigation. Then you also have the false equivalency of this is the White House we are talking about, not a media outlet. There is a difference between what a government agency puts out and what a media outlet, or even an individual politician, puts out.

(07-13-2017, 01:38 PM)Vlad Wrote: And who "thoroughly debunked"  the Clinton/Russian Uranium deal?  Snopes?

You know as well as I do that had it been Trump cutting a Uranium deal with Russia, the scrutiny from the left would be harsh an unrelenting....as from the Republican establishment as well.

Dino has already pointed it out, but there have been many things that have come out concluding that the claim was not true based simply on the facts of the situation. If you would like to be critical of the deal overall, I have no problems with that and as long as the critique is reasoned well then good on you. Trying to hang it around Clinton's neck when it is possible she didn't have anything to do with it at all, and if she did it was a small hand in it, is asinine.

[hollodero]

(07-13-2017, 01:53 PM)Vlad Wrote: Hope you're speaking for yourself.
I wasn't aware leftists ever defended Trump.

Yeah, yawn.

(07-13-2017, 01:53 PM)Vlad Wrote: Regarding Trumps comments  "Conservatives don't take Trump literally, but they do take him seriously...liberals take him literally but not seriously."

Yeah, you quite can't take him seriously when you take his words "literally". Strangest things, how else should one take another's word? Is he talking metaphorical, and the left spectrum just doesn't get it? When proposing working with Putin on securing the election, that's a figure of speech only you guys get? When he says Mika was bleeding badly from a face-lift, that's a subtle critique of our society's obsession with aging? When he claims all his "enemies" tried to be friends with him and now are sour that they have been rejected by Trump, he simply cleverly slams our celebrity lechery?

I find no indication that Trump is talking in parables. It's far more likely that he just talks a lot of moronic nonsense. And your saying is just a way to ignore that, or spin it like you want to hear it, so it seems he means all the right things. That's a clever protection of the offense to your intellect Trump hands you every day. Russia meddling is fake news, Russia meddling is also Obama's fault - now make your pick what you take how literally, and you will see Trump means exactly what you think when saying something else. But honestly. It's just a cheap, convenient way of argueing.

Honest question. Have you never ever, not even in a single moment, thought that maybe Trump is just what Trump opponents see in him? That some of the things he says are truely stupid, decieving, divisive, untruthful, narcissistic and flawed? The opponents don't just come from the left, you know. I don't care about American left or right, if conservatives get their way and health care et al. is more of a survival of the fittest scheme, you believe in trickle down and shame abortions and whatever, what gives. I would form a society differently, but that's what I try to do in my country, don't care about the US. But Trump is a moronic demagogue, almost everyone in the world sees it that way, people who also do not care about your liberal-conservative trench. We do not "fall for leftist propaganda" or agenda-driven US-American media outlets. It's just painfully, and I mean painfully obvious.
And somewhere you have to know that you're on the wrong sinde of history, just as the Nixon supporters were. That also remained faithful to the very end. Which also is a right-wing phenomena, one a part of me truely admires. But if you got nothing more to offer than some stale statements like the one above, your ground isn't quite solid.

[Dill]

(07-13-2017, 01:38 PM)Vlad Wrote: I just don't believe I've ever read any of your posts in which you stated how asinine it is that democrats and the media were still pushing this Russian story.
Hey, if the persistent push of this story plants into peoples minds that Trumps election was somehow tainted or illegitimate then lets just stick with it.

And who "thoroughly debunked"  the Clinton/Russian Uranium deal?  Snopes?

You know as well as I do that had it been Trump cutting a Uranium deal with Russia, the scrutiny from the left would be harsh an unrelenting....as from the Republican establishment as well.

It is hardly "asinine" to report news. On a previous thread you claimed that journalists should just report the facts. Now you appear to be saying they should not report them if they could damage Trump.

Why do you think Americans should not know about the many Trump campaign operatives who met with Russian Operatives while Russia was working to undermine our election process? Are you implying it would make sense NOT to investigate this and NOT to tell the public about it because that might undermine Trump?

When a story about a Clinton uranium deal has been debunked, you nevertheless keep it in circulation. 

And you toss in a claim that had Trump made such a deal, "scrutiny from the left would be harsh and unrelenting." Perhaps it would--until it were discovered there is nothing there. So here is where the right separates from the left--you are keeping a debunked story in circulation.

[Dill]

(07-13-2017, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what also makes this a different scenario is that previous administrations have tried to deflect or pivot when faced with bad press. They try to change the story to be what they want it to be. That is the most common technique in politics and while it appears unethical to an outside observer, it is the nature of the beast. In this administration we see outright lies or refusals to answer. If you hear any former communications staffer, left or right, talk about their job in the White House they will tell you that those are two things you absolutely cannot do.

What we're seeing has to become a question like the chicken and the egg on a couple of levels. Has the hostility by the press towards Trump caused the issue, or has behavior from the Trump communications team dating back to the campaign (which was notoriously bad) caused the hostility? Either way, it has snowballed to a place that is damaging to our society. We also have the question of whether certain FNC persons are being fed WH talking points, or whether the WH is parroting them. If you listen to the messaging between them it is far too similar to be coincidental, especially when you take into account the timing. Between that and the way the WHPC is being treated it is like a creation of state media.

Several good points here, including the reference to testimony from previous communications staffers, which enables comparison.

As far as the chicken and the egg conundrum--all presidents are criticized by the press. Bush and Obama have both stated that even when they don't like it, press criticism is central to democracy. Press criticism cannot "cause" Trump style reaction unless there is something in this particular president and his team which lead them to respond differently. In my view, this would include the inability to understand the role of the press in a liberal democracy and the inability to hear criticism, right or wrong, impersonally. For Trump it's all about liking or not liking. If you like Trump you will write something nice and if you don't you will write something "mean."  If Trump likes you, because you wrote something positive, you are "first rate." If he doesn't, you are "third rate." There is no "just reporting the news, even if its bad" option. I am not sure this is strategy. I think it is an analytic limitation. He is not capable of mature judgment.

Megyn Kelly asked a legitimate question about Trump's comments about women. Trump decided that was a bullshit question just designed to insult him. I.e., he did/does not see his misogynistic comments about women as a legitimate problem for anyone. So questions from the press are cast not as Trump's own choices making him look bad, but the press trying to MAKE him look bad.  So this egg is certainly laid by Trump and his team. They make it worse when they call respectable news organizations "fake news." In fact they have made it almost impossible to report effectively on the WH because of the BS restrictions and odd scheduling and shifting venues. NOT EVEN NIXON was doing this.

All state media do not do this. It occurs in countries where the executive faces no checks and balances. E.g., Russia, and increasingly Poland, Hungary and Turkey.

[Dill]

(07-13-2017, 06:46 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: 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.

It seems that one feature of current right discourse is that "blame" is the qualitatively and quantitatively the same all around.

Worse, the question of whether blame is merited is passed over.  "Leftists" blame Bush for starting a war in which over 4,000 Americans and 150,000 Iraqis were killed, thereby massively destabilizing the Middle East. They blame him for cutting a deal with Big Pharma to accept prices on pharmaceuticals without bargaining. 

Rightists blame Obama for Benghazi, in which 4 Americans died, and Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal.  With the exception of Benghazi, there is at least some ground for criticism here, something to actually investigate, with consequences following.

But when people just say "both sides blame each other," the gravity and and validity of the different "blames" is conflated, as if the debate is overall over nothing more serious than over which president played the most rounds of golf.

[ballsofsteel]

(07-13-2017, 04:39 PM)Dill Wrote: It seems that one feature of current right discourse is that "blame" is the qualitatively and quantitatively the same all around.

Worse, the question of whether blame is merited is passed over.  "Leftists" blame Bush for starting a war in which over 4,000 Americans and 150,000 Iraqis were killed, thereby massively destabilizing the Middle East. They blame him for cutting a deal with Big Pharma to accept prices on pharmaceuticals without bargaining. 

Rightists blame Obama for Benghazi, in which 4 Americans died, and Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal.  With the exception of Benghazi, there is at least some ground for criticism here, something to actually investigate, with consequences following.

But when people just say "both sides blame each other," the gravity and and validity of the different "blames" is conflated, as if the debate is overall over nothing more serious than over which president played the most rounds of golf.

i'll say it again. Between the current potus, the right wing congress the last eight years and the right wing talking heads (Limbaugh,Hannity, O'rielly, Joe ****, other rightwing nuts and faux news), They beat the dead horse ten times more than any left wing talking head.
They both do it. = true  But one side does it alot more than the other.
This sounds about right.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2017, 04:39 PM)Dill Wrote: It seems that one feature of current right discourse is that "blame" is the qualitatively and quantitatively the same all around.

Worse, the question of whether blame is merited is passed over.  "Leftists" blame Bush for starting a war in which over 4,000 Americans and 150,000 Iraqis were killed, thereby massively destabilizing the Middle East. They blame him for cutting a deal with Big Pharma to accept prices on pharmaceuticals without bargaining. 

Rightists blame Obama for Benghazi, in which 4 Americans died, and Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal.  With the exception of Benghazi, there is at least some ground for criticism here, something to actually investigate, with consequences following.

But when people just say "both sides blame each other," the gravity and and validity of the different "blames" is conflated, as if the debate is overall over nothing more serious than over which president played the most rounds of golf.

How far do we get to go back? Vietnam saw 60,000 Americans killed and I don't know how many Vietnamese. A million? Since it happened in my lifetime I'm going to go ahead and count it. Republicans get 9 more Iraqs before they catch up.

[xxlt]

(07-13-2017, 12:19 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

News is now part of the entertainment division. Journalistic standards are near zero at some television outlets. The corporate owners have a clear agenda. All this feeds into the phenomenon you're describing, and I agree it is a new phenomenon. It isn't how Nixon fought Watergate or Reagan fought Iran-Contra.

The funny thing - well really tragic - is that you have pretty solid news sources like BBC and NPR that people dismiss because "they all lie." It is like the whataboutery you are talking about gets turned around on the media - i.e someone in the bubble finally has to concede Fox "reporting" is 90% bullshit and Limbaugh wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on his bulbous cheek, and their response is, 'well I can't believe anyone then because Rachel Maddow has a show on MSNBC and therefore the BBC lies...if you can't trust one you can't trust all...' Really convoluted and just ends up meaning people should just turn off their TV and radio and make up their own headlines complete with the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy if it helps them sleep at night and believe they will wake up with a million dollars under their pillows.

[xxlt]

(07-13-2017, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what also makes this a different scenario is that previous administrations have tried to deflect or pivot when faced with bad press. They try to change the story to be what they want it to be. That is the most common technique in politics and while it appears unethical to an outside observer, it is the nature of the beast. In this administration we see outright lies or refusals to answer. If you hear any former communications staffer, left or right, talk about their job in the White House they will tell you that those are two things you absolutely cannot do.

What we're seeing has to become a question like the chicken and the egg on a couple of levels. Has the hostility by the press towards Trump caused the issue, or has behavior from the Trump communications team dating back to the campaign (which was notoriously bad) caused the hostility? Either way, it has snowballed to a place that is damaging to our society. We also have the question of whether certain FNC persons are being fed WH talking points, or whether the WH is parroting them. If you listen to the messaging between them it is far too similar to be coincidental, especially when you take into account the timing. Between that and the way the WHPC is being treated it is like a creation of state media.

It is like a creation of state media, but the seeds were planted the day Fox launched. Ailes is dead but not forgotten, this is the story of Roger Rotten...

Speaking of, anyone sniffing around the Get me Roger Stone film? Just heard part of an interview about it yesterday... (thread worthy? I'll let you guys decide.)

I don't think the real journalists (and they are many) like those who yesterday had the priceless opportunity to report Trump met with reporters off the record, then wondered why his remarks weren't published (I swear I am not making that up, it actually happened!!!!!!!!!!) who are continuing to turn up the heat are hurting our society. They are doing their job. When a fire gets bigger you have to ramp up your fire fighting strategies. We have a full fledged blaze in the living room of America.
The abject ignorance of telling reporters your remarks are off the record and then wondering why they weren't printed is just one of the myriad manifestations of said inferno.

[Dill]

(07-13-2017, 10:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: How far do we get to go back?  Vietnam saw 60,000 Americans killed and I don't know how many Vietnamese. A million?  Since it happened in my lifetime I'm going to go ahead and count it. Republicans get 9 more Iraqs before they catch up.

Thanks for the question, Michael. It will help clarify my intent in starting this thread.

Remember that I want to construct an analytic framework in which it becomes possible to do more than just trade anecdotes about which party is "worse."

The topic is news "counter-narratives"--is there something new and different about the way these are constructed and deployed by the current White House and Fox?  I am exploring the possibility that we've come to a point where the deployment of "whatabouts" and false equivalences is designed and systematic, and I am curious about what changes in the mediascape have allowed this strategy to be effective--e.g., delegitimation of the MSM.

If the White House makes a false equivalence between Vietnam and some Trump scandal, then we certainly could go back to Vietnam--or the Civil War. 

I mentioned Iraq in juxtaposition to Benghazi because of the amazing difference in outrage produced by each.  This difference is not to be explained by the events themselves.  The magnitude of consequences for the US--and the Middle East--is massively greater in the case of Iraq. Bush and Cheney, who actually planned and were most directly responsible for the Iraq debacle, did not go unscathed. There was an investigation of where intel went wrong and another into the failure to find WMDs. Both politicians lost credibility and support, and faced heavy criticism from the "liberal press"--appropriately, I think. In contrast, in the Right Wing media, responsibility for Benghazi was so directly connected to Hillary that Hannity was campaigning for her to meet the families of the deceased and apologize to them personally. Imagine--7 investigations into Benghazi, including the longest in Congressional history. In the course of the last, one it was discovered Hillary had a private server. That more than anything may have lost her the election.

Comparisons to the Mayaguez incident and the Bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut might have been more effective. The point of such comparisons would not be to throw up more bad decisions by Republicans (difficult judgment calls each, just like Carter's attempt to rescue the Iran hostages), but to highlight the difference in media treatment. Back then it would have been unthinkable to demand Ford or Reagan apologize personally to family members.

What has changed since those days?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-14-2017, 08:04 PM)Dill Wrote: What has changed since those days?

Opinion portray as news.