How Counter-Narratives Emerge

[Dill]

(07-13-2017, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Several good points here, including the reference to testimony from previous communications staffers, which enables comparison.

As far as the chicken and the egg conundrum--all presidents are criticized by the press. Bush and Obama have both stated that even when they don't like it, press criticism is central to democracy. Press criticism cannot "cause" Trump style reaction unless there is something in this particular president and his team which lead them to respond differently. In my view, this would include the inability to understand the role of the press in a liberal democracy and the inability to hear criticism, right or wrong, impersonally. For Trump it's all about liking or not liking. If you like Trump you will write something nice and if you don't you will write something "mean."  If Trump likes you, because you wrote something positive, you are "first rate." If he doesn't, you are "third rate." There is no "just reporting the news, even if its bad" option. I am not sure this is strategy. I think it is an analytic limitation. He is not capable of mature judgment.

Megyn Kelly asked a legitimate question about Trump's comments about women. Trump decided that was a bullshit question just designed to insult him. I.e., he did/does not see his misogynistic comments about women as a legitimate problem for anyone. So questions from the press are cast not as Trump's own choices making him look bad, but the press trying to MAKE him look bad.  So this egg is certainly laid by Trump and his team. They make it worse when they call respectable news organizations "fake news." In fact they have made it almost impossible to report effectively on the WH because of the BS restrictions and odd scheduling and shifting venues. NOT EVEN NIXON was doing this.

All state media do not do this. It occurs in countries where the executive faces no checks and balances. E.g., Russia, and increasingly Poland, Hungary and Turkey.