The New Narrative

It is taken as axiomatic among many bloggers that the mainstream media (MSM) promotes stories that fit their established world view. This narrative, as it is known, defines a template for stories that reporters and editors believe will resonate with their readership. Stories that fit the narrative get considerably play, even if the events and data underlying those stories are later proven to be contrary to fact.

In the US presidential election, the narrative for a long time was essentially "Bush fatigue" as a result of the Iraq war. However, with events in Iraq improving dramatically, the good news is getting far less play, and is quickly becoming a non-event in the campaign. An AFP article I read today reported that in October, 40% of Obama's campaign ads mentioned Iraq, but by December this was down to well under 10%, with only McCain mentioning Iraq regularly.

So what is the new narrative? The press reporting of Obama's win in Iowa says it all. The AP wrote "Obama. . .tapped into Democrat's yearning for change after Republican President George W. Bush's two terms in office."

But wait, how is that yearning unique to Obama? Fact is, it is not. The same sentence could have been written if Hillary or John Edwards had won in Iowa. The MSM (at least the AP) have not changed the narrative. Instead they have shifted the emphasis from Iraq, which is increasingly proving to be a Bush success story. The emphasis is still on change as a result of two many years of Bush. On the Republican side, the MSM is also promoting Huckabee as a "change" story, although there is at least admission that the Evangelical base in Iowa was a major factor in a state where get-out-the-vote efforst are critical to success in the caucus system.

The real story here is being continually de-emphasised. Namely, Hillary Clinton lost and lost big. The problem isn't Bush fatigue. Nearly all Democrat voters have Bush fatigue. The issue is Clinton fatigue. After 16 years of the Bill and Hillary show, I suspect Democrat voters want something better. Obama speaks of hope and change in a positive way. His speech after the caucuses, while short on specifics, was long on rhetorical brilliance. Democrat voters want to feel good about the future, and Obama is giving them that feeling. . .It is practically Reaganesque.

Obama is however no Reagan. He simply does not have the depth of conviction on core values, and most importantly the greatness of America. This creates an opportunity for Republicans to attack on several fronts, by clearly articulating that:
1) America is the solution and not the problem. Most of the world wants to be more like us, not less. Americans can be proud of our history and actions in the world.
2) The solution to economic uncertainty is lower taxes and less government red-tape, so that you can keep more of your own hard-earned money to spend as you choose.
3) Rule of law is a virtue, and this applies to the immigration issue (legal immigration good, illegal immigration bad). Furthermore, promotion of democracy and rule of law around the world is a moral duty.
4) There are still bad guys that want to kill us and destroy our way of life. Leaders are obligated to do their utmost to protect us from Al-Qaeda and other Islamofacists.
5) Socialism doesn't work and must be combatted at home (nationalized health care) and abroad (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc.)

Now if only the MSM would understand those 5 points as core to a compelling narrative, you'd probably see improvements in MSM sales, and a more substantive debate during the US election on how actually to achieve those goals.