Blog 2

The event that took place January 21, was large and impactful in nature but definitely had at least two very different narratives. In analyzing two different articles talking about this event there are a variety of differences. There is a larger picture when talking about the #resistance movement, however fir this purpose I will analyze two articles with very different view points on the Women’s March. The first article is called “The Pointless Paranoia of the Women’s Marches”. An interesting opening statement in this particular article talking about how the author is not a stranger to protesting was, “Now I’m not talking here about the Gloria Steinems and Michael Moores, for whom protest is so much a way of life they couldn’t exist without it. Or the Madonnas who, like other entertainment stalwarts, have businesses reasons for constantly reminding us they still have their “edge” even as they age, liberally dropping the f-bomb and speculating about bombing the White House in the process”. By the author starting the article with this they are setting a mindset for the reader that these women are the women that people were following in the Women’s March. The author goes on to talk about why they are confused about people’s motivations for marching. Saying things like, “Oh, right, Donald Trump, that vulgar misogynist who bragged about pu**y grabbing”. They say this by following it up with comparing it to the Bill Clinton incident. This is trying to prove that the people marching did not make a big deal about that but did about Trump’s comments, and that is why the march is hypocritical. I found it very interesting that the final comment in the article stated, “people who demonstrate all all the time should consider they risk morphing into a collective version of the boy who cried wolf”. The author is really trying to emphasize that the women who marched can not be trusted and trying to get people to not believe them in the future. Turning it around now and analyzing an article called, “The Trump Resistance Will Be Led by Angry Women”, there is a different narrative going on. This article tugs at the heart strings to get the audience feel a certain way. For example, it gives an example of a young girl asking her grandmother if the were going to be sent back to Africa because Trump won. When it starts getting more into the demonstration itself the author states, “The demonstrations showed how deeply and completely much of the country rejects its scowling, delusional new president”. This language is definitely trying to evoke emotion and it may not be accurate but it is making its point known. They also throw in a comment from women who says that her view on the world has become much darker. That is kind of the last punch in the article, trying to get across how defeated women feel and that is why they marched and needed to make their voices heard. Those are two completely different articles about the same event, both not completely factual but definitely got their views across.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/01/21/the-pointless-paranoia-of-the-womens-marches/

http://www.slate.com/articles/double x/doublex/2017/01/the trump resistance will be led by angry women.html

A recent event that generated a range of interpretations across the media landscape is the Women's March. This was the largest protest in US History, estimated 2.9 million march. There are definitely two different competing narratives when talking about this protest. The first narrative would be that the Women's March was something that brought millions of women and others together to fight back against the sexist Donald Trump and him trying to control women's reproductive rights along with other things. This particular narrative relies heavily on emotion and really calls for the uniting of everyone to stand against injustice. It is also puts into light that if you do not stand up to this more and more rights will be stripped away, some say you need to do what our ancestors have done in the past. The second narrative that is being portrayed is that the Women's March is pointless and it is a bunch of women who are pissed about Hillary Clinton losing so they are simply acting out. This narrative talks about how the people marching did not even know what they were marching about, that they are just whining and that Donald Trump is just trying to make our country great again and this is just part of it. The differences in these narratives is pretty clear. The first side believes that their rights are being taken away and that they do not want to stand for sexism. Where as on the other side they are saying it is not sexist just necessary, and that the protest did and meant nothing. They both definitely are trying to appeal to different demographics when talking about this matter. The first narrative is appealing to women feeling trampled on, Pro-Choice people, and also to anyone who does not want to stand for injustice, and wants equality for everyone. With women being the primary target, they are also trying to show others that they are standing up for more than just themselves, in an attempt to get more support. They rely strongly on emotion and definitely use tactics to try and get people to feel something. On the other side however, they are appealing to more of the Trump supporters, and definitely the Pro- Life people in America. All though Pro-life and Pro-choice was not the only reason for the march, it definitely was a part of it and both of those large demographics are a large audience base. They are such a large audience base because you wither are one or the other, it is very hard to not strongly believe in one or the other. There are a variety of different techniques being used. For the first narrative the media tuned in on particular marchers with for example an influential story or sign they held. Also the simple fact that the march was the largest protest in US History is extremely influential in itself. Where as the other narrative is more focused on using facts and statistics to try and get their point across. They try to make it seem like their side is correct because they have numbers and statistics to back up certain points.


Sources:
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/01/21/the-pointless-paranoia-of-the-womens-marches/
https://www.slate.com/articles/double x/doublex/2017/01/the trump resistance will be lead by angry women/.html