How Counter-Narratives Emerge

[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.