Capitol Hearings: Competing Narratives

[Dill]

(07-29-2021, 03:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, as for the bolded, there we differ again. I think the counter narrative does not really matter at all. I guess most people that were pro Trump in the first place would accept any counternarrative that comes along, and if it were that all Democrats are disguised aliens or sent by satan. They just need something to say, and how much sense it makes isn't all that important, as long as the group goes along. It isn't so much about the issue in the first place - which goes indeed for both sides, actually. Liberals don't care all that much about double standards either if it suits them not to. (That I think one side is way worse goes without saying, for I said it so often.)

The bolded speaks to an implied premise of this thread, which is that counter narratives, as disinformation campaigns, are indeed critical maintaining effective right wing opposition to Dems--especially where Trump's reputation and viability as a candidate are on the dock.
 
I hold this view in part on historical grounds. The rise of RWM as a national force via talk radio in the '80s and Fox in the '90s has "mainstreamed" what were once fringe right views, along with a style of denunciation which makes debate and compromise difficult. The consistent message since then, the backbone of the counternarrative, has been to denounce the MSM as "biased" and to claim "journalism is dead," leaving RWM the trusted alternative. That is a primary factor in all of the disinformation campaigns around Hillary, the Russia investigation, the impeachments, COVID guidelines, and the Big Lie, which are “sub”counter narratives under that general umbrella, which now spans three decades.
 
Thus people weren't somehow just pro-Trump in 2016 because the proportion of conservatives amenable to his style have always been roughly the same proportion of the electorate with the same levels of anger, regardless of information sources and counter-liberal narratives. The increase in proportion since 1988 is a measurable change, and does not reflect "pro-conservatives just remaining pro-conservative," regardless of alternative news/counter-liberal narratives. RWM has both expanded the US Right and, especially over the last four years, amplified the anger and distrust it creates itself, and changed the meaning of “pro-conservative” while encouraging uncritical acceptance of its counternarratives to make sense of what is "really" happening in "the swamp." 
 
One consequence of this rise of RWM has been high levels of disinformation, especially evident since the Iraq War. The current most consequential manifestation of this is the refusal of tens of millions to get vaccinated during a pandemic in which over 600,000 Americans have already died. Had Trump called COVID the "DEM virus" and Hannity called it a really existing threat to limit our economic freedom and make us more dependent on government and Tucker Carlson urged listeners to fight back by getting the vaccinated with the amazingly rapid vaccine development led by Trump, surely we'd be reaching herd immunity by now. But we are not, precisely because of a counter-narrative which goes the other direction--COVID is largely a hoax designed to expand gov. power, a pretext for Dem/gov control of our personal lives. You fight that by not wearing masks and not getting vaccinated. There has always been an inconsequential group of anti-vaxxers in the US since the 50s, but it is consequential now, precisely because of this orchestrated counter narrative, currently adjusting to the new CDC guidelines. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/missouri-public-health-official-abused-by-hostile-crowd-over-support-for-mask-mandate
 
If I understand you, Hollo, you disagree with this view. You’ll may grant that there are counter-narratives as described, but you don’t agree that they make a difference, don’t “maintain” disinformation at the level needed to keep Trump a dangerous possibility in 2024. You also might not agree that the counter-narratives are the counter-logical MIRROR IMAGES of whatever scandal they are constructed to address. I.e., it absolutely does matter that it is about “the issue” and “makes sense” as rebuttal. E.g., you run up the Uranium One scandal against Russiagate, not the 2nd Impeachment. And Dr. Fauci against COVID, not 1/6.

My position: it’s because the counter narratives are effective that “nothing happens” and when nothing happens, you think the counter-narratives are therefore ineffective and “don’t matter.”