Tweet
It would seem, now that they have their 'permission slip' from DOJ, the narrative(s) are forming.
There are three which I think predominate at the moment.
Now, compare such 'thinking' to what was put out in April 2021 by the same news service... Narratives can help science counter misinformation on vaccines. It references the same paper and highlights this thinking...
Did you notice how a paper published in September of 2014, somehow, was speaking, specifically, to COVID-19 vaccines? Uh... No mention is made of COVID in the actual paper and while the author of the paper is connected to the 'news source' via the same institution, no mention in the article is made to interviewing the paper's author. Quite the contrary, mention is specifically made to what "the paper" says.
Such seems to hint at the strategy; i.e., the USE of narratives to persuade regarding 'science-related' matters such as vaccines. Where they slip is in their conflation and application. Yet, as is often the case, they further give themselves away with snippets such as: "audiences have a difficult time identifying errors in narratives and will generally accept those errors as fact." What was it Joe Biden said in 2019... Biden tells Iowans: 'We choose truth over facts'
Another snippet would be... "narratives can also perpetuate misinformation and inaccuracies." Clearly, both sides of the issue are guilty of that, all while declaring their own, intrinsic accuracy while decrying the utter falsehood of the other. Yet, it would seem that, as is often the case, projection of intent is found in the narrative itself.
In short, be careful of the narratives from both sides; but, take note of the emerging narratives pushing vaccination as it is, potentially, the more insidious in terms of our rights, our freedoms, and our future. That's not a statement supporting anti-vaccination. It's an advisory to not be persuaded by the narrative and, instead, look to the facts and how they apply to your, individual circumstance.
There are three which I think predominate at the moment.
- Unvaccinated are undesireable. We're all familiar with this one as it has been a steady drumbeat. It's all the unvaccinated's fault. 50%, 60%, 96% of the hospitalized and dead are now unvaccinated. This narrative appears to be aimed at making it seem as though the unvaccinated are in the minority and, thus, "undesireable" status does not impact the majority. The problem is, if you were to drill down on the actual numbers, it's not quite that simple and, in fact, less than half of the U.S. population is actually fully vaccinated.
- You have no Constitutional right to infect others. I heard this from Alan Dershowitz tonight on Laura Ingraham and saw it tonight in a Los Angeles Times Editorial... Editorial: Bring on the crackdown. The unvaccinated must be held accountable... Kinda one of those guilty until proven innocent, but your guilt will always remain in question......Hooray. It’s time the stubbornly unvaccinated are held to account for their part in the resurgence of COVID-19...
The new COVID-19 rules prompted a predictable backlash from those who insist the Constitution gives them the freedom to infect others. (It doesn’t; witness the Supreme Court decision in 1905 declaring that states could mandate smallpox vaccinations.) We have little patience with the knee-jerk naysayers who label every new pandemic policy a governmental overreach. What exactly would the government gain by asking people to put cloth over their faces to save their own lives? In what bizarro world is it an abuse of power to give people the choice of taking a free, life-saving medication or doing preventive testing to prove they aren’t infectious?... - The vaccines are safe and any information to the contrary is lies/misinformation. Now, if you're a conspiracy theorist or simply one who is open-minded and has been studying the facts as they emerge, this one strikes a chord in that, as we often say, the Left often projects their own machinations on to others. Back in 2015, a piece was published entitled How science and storytelling influence the debate over vaccines. In it, you will find the following... ...In a paper published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014, Dahlstrom looked at the effectiveness of narratives in sharing scientific information with the public. He wrote that the persuasiveness of narratives can both benefit science communication and create challenges. While stories can sway beliefs on topics, such as vaccines, narratives can also perpetuate misinformation and inaccuracies...
...Research suggests that narratives are easier to comprehend and audiences find them more engaging than traditional logical-scientific communication. More pragmatically, the sources from which nonexperts receive most of their science information are already biased toward narrative formats of communication. Once out of formal schooling, nonexpert audiences get the majority of their scientific information from mass media content. Because media practitioners have to compete for the attention of their audiences, they routinely rely on stories, anecdotes, and other narrative formats to cut although the information clutter and resonate with their audiences. Although the plural of anecdote may not be data, the anecdote has a greater chance of reaching and engaging with a nonexpert audience. The challenge for science communicators, then, is to decide when and how narratives can effectively and appropriately help them communicate to nonexperts about science...
However, another important news value is one with clear links to narrative: personification. Even when reporting on larger social forces, news media routinely personify abstract concepts for dramatic storytelling, focusing on a particular individual or smaller group within the larger context and exploring the consequences of their actions, a practice explored in detail within exemplification theory. There are many reasons why personification makes sense for news media. For the audience, personification allows the audience a greater chance of identification and empathy compared with the larger aggregate and aligns better with the Western expectation of individualism. For the media, personification better meets the needs of news production, as it is easier to interview and photograph an individual rather than something that represents larger social forces. Similarly, individual people generally act in a time span that more closely matches the frequency of news publication...
However, another important news value is one with clear links to narrative: personification. Even when reporting on larger social forces, news media routinely personify abstract concepts for dramatic storytelling, focusing on a particular individual or smaller group within the larger context and exploring the consequences of their actions, a practice explored in detail within exemplification theory. There are many reasons why personification makes sense for news media. For the audience, personification allows the audience a greater chance of identification and empathy compared with the larger aggregate and aligns better with the Western expectation of individualism. For the media, personification better meets the needs of news production, as it is easier to interview and photograph an individual rather than something that represents larger social forces. Similarly, individual people generally act in a time span that more closely matches the frequency of news publication...
...For example, a story about how the COVID-19 vaccine is allowing families to reconnect after months apart is more persuasive and compelling than explaining how the vaccine works and its efficacy, Dahlstrom said. However, he cautions that stories won’t always have an impact. On controversial issues, there will be people on both extremes who align with stories that confirm what they believe and attack stories counter to their beliefs.
As Dahlstrom explained in the paper, research has shown that audiences have a difficult time identifying errors in narratives and will generally accept those errors as fact. Even when people know a story is misleading or incorrect, they still tend to believe it, rather than disregard. That is why presenting an equally compelling narrative may be more effective than trying to counter that misinformation with facts alone...
As Dahlstrom explained in the paper, research has shown that audiences have a difficult time identifying errors in narratives and will generally accept those errors as fact. Even when people know a story is misleading or incorrect, they still tend to believe it, rather than disregard. That is why presenting an equally compelling narrative may be more effective than trying to counter that misinformation with facts alone...
Such seems to hint at the strategy; i.e., the USE of narratives to persuade regarding 'science-related' matters such as vaccines. Where they slip is in their conflation and application. Yet, as is often the case, they further give themselves away with snippets such as: "audiences have a difficult time identifying errors in narratives and will generally accept those errors as fact." What was it Joe Biden said in 2019... Biden tells Iowans: 'We choose truth over facts'
Another snippet would be... "narratives can also perpetuate misinformation and inaccuracies." Clearly, both sides of the issue are guilty of that, all while declaring their own, intrinsic accuracy while decrying the utter falsehood of the other. Yet, it would seem that, as is often the case, projection of intent is found in the narrative itself.
In short, be careful of the narratives from both sides; but, take note of the emerging narratives pushing vaccination as it is, potentially, the more insidious in terms of our rights, our freedoms, and our future. That's not a statement supporting anti-vaccination. It's an advisory to not be persuaded by the narrative and, instead, look to the facts and how they apply to your, individual circumstance.
Legitimate question.
Comment