This fantastic news update (https://www.valdostadailytimes.com/opinion/columns/sotu-a-wall-changing-the-narrative/article_7b4a4f29-2fce-58aa-9c5f-bff2a0e7abb8.html) posted by the Valdosta Daily Times presents itself as a pretty good example of using narrative as a tool in daily life. This article seems to be an attempt by a very pro-Trump staff writer to “pwn the libs” by harnessing the power of narrative. Gary Weisenbaker, Valdosta Daily Times staff writer and career realtor, makes a lot of fun claims about the impact of a “liberal narrative” but my favorite has to be when he mentions that this narrative seeks to “change the narrative and chastise those Americans who choose work over welfare, life over abortion and the rule of law governing immigration over lawlessness and, of course, excoriate those who, by working hard or having an entrepreneurial spirit, have improved their financial position in life.”
Throughout this article, Weisenbaker is both attacking the use of narrative by those on the opposing side of his argument, while also utilizing narrative to pull support to his side. Time and time again he speaks about how Democratic Socialists wish to “change the current narrative” and reform aspects of America that no longer work for the majority of people. However, since they have been in place forever, and help to support higher classes, he is obviously opposed to the editing of this narrative. Though he approaches it in a much harsher manner that seeks to demonize and belittle the opposition. While doing this, Weisenbaker is also developing a narrative of his own, or participating in one that already exists, that is actively working to convince the readers of this article to believe *his* version of things, so that those seeking to change the current narrative are rendered unable.
I thought it would be interesting to use this article because it shows how depending on where you’re sitting, the most fitting narrative for the situation can change dramatically. And, if we look at it that way, it also shows how multiple narratives can occur within close proximity of one another and still run parallel. That disagreement (or simply inability to agree) in tight quarters illuminates the ability for certain narratives to disadvantage another one. Regardless of which side of this particular narrative you support, the participation in it will directly disadvantage the opposition.
 
Comments
Post a Comment