The Narrative in action
Posted by aogMonday, 10 September 2012 at 21:09 TrackBack Ping URL

Adam Nagourney writes about a speaker who didn’t speak at the Democratic Part National Convention. This is what I mean by the Narrative - Nagourney had obviously decided, before the speech occurred, how it would be received and wrote it that way. That the speaker, Representative Barney Frank, didn’t actually speak is irrelevant. Yet I am expected to become informed by people like this? I am in fact better informed for not having read him at all.

But informing people simply isn’t the goal of modern journalism, it is creating the Narrative and controlling the conversation. Why shouldn’t I, as someone who respects information, not despise these people?

Update: Let’s not forget this little incident where Brian Ross falsely accused a Tea Partier of being the shooter in Aurora, CO. The key question “how did such a weakly based story make it on the air?”. Because it fit the Narrative and so all those layers of fact checkers and editors let it on by, once again misinforming any viewers. This exact thing has a long history in Old Media yet, somehow, it keeps happening. At what point can I reasonably argue that for Old Media, politics trumps facts for their reporting?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Bret Monday, 10 September 2012 at 23:35

Maybe we should all despise each other since we each have a “Narrative” which is just another word for a subjective reality. The specific Narrative you’re referring to brings meaning and perhaps fulfillment and perhaps even joy to tens or hundreds of millions of people. Other Narratives bring meaning to the lives of countless others.

Religion is a pretty good example. I have friends who are leftists who claim that they want to make people better off. At the same time they’re strident (rabid?) atheists who want to stamp out any and all religion and related activities even though religious people are, on average, even after accounting for multiple variables, happier than non-religious people. They despise religious people from every cell in the their bodies and while they may want to make people better off, if religion is part of the formula for making them better off, forget it, nevermind, those people don’t deserve to be made better off.

They also claim to be people “who respect information” and therefore have every right and even duty to despise religious people.

Do they?

Do you?

erp Tuesday, 11 September 2012 at 07:13

Bret, problem is defining the terms. They want to make people better off how? Vegan diet, live in hives being controlled and “safe” by them, the elites, who are drunk with the notion of complete power.

If you notice, the left deals slogans, generalities, fluff and nonsense.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 11 September 2012 at 08:11

Maybe we should all despise each other since we each have a “Narrative” which is just another word for a subjective reality

No, only those who pretend they don’t have a Narrative and condescendingly berate others for not unquestioningly accepting that Narrative. I don’t mind religious people because they know they have a religion. If Old Media considered itself the same way I wouldn’t mind them either.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 11 September 2012 at 08:44


It occurs to me that your religious analogy fails in other ways. The biggest would be the libelous nature of the activity, which is done by those I despise but not by those you describe. The self selected label of Old Media, “objective”, “fact checker”, etc. compounds beyond a difference of opinion / Narrative in to cause for despite. As I’ve noted before, when Old Media is considered just another voice in the ideosphere as the religious are, is when I’ll stop ranting and despising them.

Bret Tuesday, 11 September 2012 at 10:33

…condescendingly berate others for not unquestioningly accepting that Narrative…”

Isn’t that what religions do (and worse) to heretics/unbelievers? As an agnostic with Jewish ancestry, I can tell you that is exactly what most religions do, though less so in America in the last couple of decades.

…when Old Media is considered just another voice in the ideosphere as the religious are…

This is an inside versus outside perspective. Certainly I (and apparently you) do consider Old Media “just another voice in the ideosphere” as I consider a religious figure such a voice. That’s because we’re outside the group. The religious figure, who’s an insider, likely considers himself a voice of Truth (with a capital ‘T’) just as the journolist (sic) also considers himself a voice of Truth (again with a capital ‘T’).

I don’t despise those who have found Truth because they have found meaning, etc. for their lives. In fact, perhaps I envy them slightly.

Where my problem lies with such ideological entities is when they use the leverage of the power of the State to ram their ideologies down my throat. The concept of separation of church and state is a great one. Too bad there isn’t also the separation of ideology (and looting) and state.

Hey Skipper Tuesday, 11 September 2012 at 13:22

Don’t forget Krugman and the NYT after the Giffords shooting.

I don’t recall either one of them holding themselves to account.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 11 September 2012 at 13:50

Isn’t that what religions do (and worse) to heretics/unbelievers?

Not in my view. It’s hard to pin down exactly why I find those things so different but I would say it’s because the religious make an explicit acknowledgement that joining them involved changing your beliefs, your Narrative. Old Media has no such sense, it should just be automatic. Now this may be just my personal experience but I find the religious far more accepting of questioning and dissent than Old Media. I’m not sure this is a good way to express it but the religious accept my atheism as valid but wrong. Old Media I find thinks my dissent from their Narrative as invalid. I also find that the religious tell many fewer verifiable falsehoods. This is especially bothersome to me because Old Media makes such a big deal about how honest, reliable, and objective they are.

I don’t despise those who have found Truth because they have found meaning, etc. for their lives.

I don’t either. Perhaps the difference is that I don’t perceive the religious as despising me for not accepting their Narrative, while that is exactly what I perceive Old Media as doing.


Another take on building the Narrative to leverage the power of the State.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 12:56

The near monopoly is another thing that’s a problem with Old Media and not with the religious. Here’s an example the combination of the Narrative and that monopoly directly impact our ability, as citizens, to get information.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 18 September 2012 at 14:29

It’s becoming closer to literal state propaganda all the time.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 26 September 2012 at 09:10

Here we go - the Romney tapes which were claimed to be complete and unedited turn out to be incomplete and edited. How “unexpected”! It’s particularly telling that this was done by the same people who falsely castigated Breitbart for the same thing. I understand the desire for one’s own Narrative but I think I can judge harshly those Narratives that don’t have a different interpretation but depend on easily demonstrated falsehoods.

Such as this example of Old Media falsehoods.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 30 September 2012 at 09:12

White House officials, the Obama administration in general, the Obama for America campaign, the campaign of presidential challenger Mitt Romney (though the evidence Peters provided is thin and seems to relate largely to the candidate’s family), and powerful Washington politicians on Capitol Hill are dictating what the press will print concerning their nonpublic statements and remarks — and that the press is, for the most part, acquiescing with little if any objection.

p> — Tom Blumer”:

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 08 October 2012 at 22:54

Some more tidbits —

Post a comment