07-12-2017, 07:39 PM
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?
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?