“Whose Side Are You On?”

Media: Deliver Identity Confirming Content in Return for Consumer Loyalty
Politicians: Receive Favorable Coverage as Long as They Provide Identity-Confirming Narratives
Audience: Seek Identity-Confirming News & Identity-Confirming Politicians

Truth/responsibility be damned. https://t.co/C2mPpCUWvm

— Piqued Pensioner (@PiquedPensioner) March 2, 2023

I’m old enough to remember when Dallas and Houston had two newspapers (each): one “liberal,” one “conservative.”

And people watched Cronkite, or Huntley-Brinkley, or ABC, depending on their political leanings. 

“Identity confirming narratives“ is not the propaganda bright line some want it to be. A lot of this is the battles of the ‘60’s working their way through the anaconda (just go with the metaphor). Hippies had long hair, then “outlaws,” then rednecks. College students protested against authority, then the working class (because inflation and the ‘70’s screwed them). And now upper middle class white guys. 

Hippies and war protesters didn’t trust Cronkite (which proved they were unAmerican). And they felt quite sure the “system” was rigged against them (the Church Committee and the Pentagon papers would show they had a point). Well, and the Vietnam war, which most hippies only escaped by being college students (benefiting from a rigged system doesn’t mean you don’t know it’s rigged).

And so, as I say, those ideas pass through the anaconda.

Identity confirming narratives are normative. They’re propaganda when “they “ do them. They’re enculturation when “we” do them. A lot of identity confirming narratives were told in response to the War and the Civil Rights movement.  They still are. That’s why we’re still having these fights.

Whose side are you on? That’s what determines which narratives are valid. 

Although it doesn’t make FoxNews a journalistic enterprise.