Analyzing specific articles featured in mainstream media during the last two months, I've discovered some consistent themes, general strategies, and specific tactics. I'm going to recap some of what I've learned from both my general media survey and my line-by-line analyses:
1) One general theme has obviously been "vaccinated-good, unvaccinated-bad." This theme promotes vaccines and boosters as a way to save lives and keep the economy rolling. Public figures who question the efficacy or long-term value of vaccines, thereby undercutting the preferred narrative, are attacked in various ways.
2) Surprisingly, given the "vaccinated-good, unvaccinated-bad" narrative, actual scientific experts are not regularly on display. They aren't featured as authors of explanatory or predictive articles, and they certainly don't appear on television or podcasts in situations where they must field adversarial questions in cross-examination formats.
3) The usual talking head front men for CNN, MSNBC, and other media sources act as spokespeople for the American scientific community's actual experts. The public is supposed to accept these spokespeople's explanations and storylines, but because they are not actual experts, the front men are not required or even expected to field adversarial questions or grant adversarial interviews. The spokespeople seem to be insulating actual experts from public interaction.
4) One would think that the American public directly hearing from scientific experts would be a good thing during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. But that's not what's happening. The American public is kept more in the dark under Biden than Trump, which is startling when you think about it.
5) The dearth of actual experts published by CNN, Newsweek, and other media is stunning. One would have expected an explosion of actual expert pieces with Biden in office.
6) When a public figure, such as Aaron Rodgers or Joe Rogan, pushes back against the ubiquitous, homogeneous narratives, the responses to them are not made by infectious disease experts quoting meta-studies. The responses are usually "hit pieces" by people who are not Covid experts, and these hit pieces are framed under the aegis of "opinion."
7) By having "opinion pieces" attack public figures who don't adhere to orthodox government narratives, the publishing entity (whether CNN, USA Today, Newsweek, etc.) washes its hands of most of the responsibility for these pieces being accurate in any scientific way. "Opinion" writers, especially opinion writers with no actual expertise in the subjects, are free to cherry pick studies, write to influence rather than inform, and are free to just be wrong. They are free to be blatantly wrong, and because they are "not experts," they suffer no real consequences. The publishing entities, meanwhile, can wash their hands of what appears in these "opinion pieces." There is a layer of legal insulation protecting the publishing entities.
More people have died from Covid under Biden than under Trump. Yet there are no weekly task force briefings. Why are there no televised weekly task force briefings? Think about that long and hard.
Meanwhile, another variant has appeared, comprising 4% of U.S. cases at the moment. This new variant is both more transmissible than Omicron and more deadly. Hard to believe that something is more transmissible than Omicron, but there you have it. And no task force briefing in sight.
I'll continue with more propaganda strategies and tactics next time.
Bob Dietz
February 18, 2022
