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
This election has been the most unconventional in the nation's history, as has the public's response to it. I appreciate the way you summarize the basic talking points of each article you cite, though I'm not sure if you intend to focus upon the specific events of January 21, 2017 as the event which started these narratives - or perhaps if you might see the narrative encompassing the larger, adversarial relationship between the current administration and the #resistance movement. The Women's March on Jan 21 was an amazing event: global in scale, peaceful and impressive in tone (for the most part). The #resistance, however, has not always presented itself as the peaceful voice of reason - and the divisiveness which grips the country seems as pronounced as any time since the Civil War itself.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that commentators and pundits will take turns lionizing and demonizing various public protest movements. If you look back at Mr. Simon's past columns, he was likely a supporter of the Tea Party movement. It might be an interesting exercise to look for those, as well as Slate articles (especially as featured in the "Double X" column) about the Tea Party. You might find that the rhetoric being employed to describe the movements is virtually the same, except exactly flipped ("Pointless paranoia" seems very consistent with how many left-leaning pundits described the Tea Party).
Remember that our class is not about joining in the debate over the relative merits of either position, but rather to develop our skills in recognizing persuasive technique when it is deployed. I might suggest, given the basic focus of your initial post, that you expand beyond simple examination of the events of January 21, and instead look at the #resistance movement in the context of its historical importance.
Good stuff here! Let me know how I can help!
I definitely think looking at the #resistance movement will help me look deeper, and get more information. I definitely want to tap into how it has not always been peaceful and how that has gaged different opinions.
DeleteRemember that the goal of your paper is to be a discussion of the persuasive techniques being deployed in the service of competing narratives. Consider all the different ways that Mr. Trump has been portrayed thus far: is he a racist Nazi? a puppet of Vladimir Putin? an incompetent fool? a dangerous authoritarian? is he just a carnival barker who knows about reality TV and we're all being scammed? Consider the ways different media outlets would want to influence how public opinion trends towards Mr. Trump.
DeleteLet me know how I can help.