How Counter-Narratives Emerge

[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.