How Counter-Narratives Emerge

[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.