Saturday, 23 November 2024

The Secret Hand: Now It’s “OK”, How News Narratives Shape “Deep State” Perceptions Over Time

Steve Bannon's War Room
Hits: 10

Just In Time

President Donald Trump released a statement on how he will dismantle the deep state; at the same time, the corporate media, like The Atlantic, try to explain their new narrative of what the Deep State is- exactly.

Trump’s statement:

2017: Mocking the “Deep State” Concept

In 2017, The Atlantic published an article titled "There Is No American ‘Deep State’.” Written by David A. Graham, it claimed that the concept of a deep state—a shadowy group within government working against elected leaders—was largely a conspiracy theory in the U.S. Graham argued that while bureaucratic resistance to Trump existed, comparing it to Turkey’s deep state, which historically used military coups to preserve secularism, was inaccurate. In Turkey, he explained, the deep state had real power, embedded deeply within the military and intelligence services. But in the U.S., he said, this idea seemed exaggerated, even absurd.

The piece’s experts were skeptical, warning that authoritarian leaders could weaponize fear of a "deep state.” They argued that believing in a domestic deep state without evidence could lead to dangerous repression of dissent. The tone of the article was dismissive, casting the idea as largely speculative—a term that some might use to justify political frustrations rather than explain real threats.

2024: Shifting Tone to Embrace the “Deep State”

By 2024, The Atlantic’s tone had shifted significantly. An updated article suggested that entrenched bureaucratic forces in the federal government, especially in public health, do in fact resist political agendas and executive control. The discussion now acknowledged the reality of a quasi-independent "deep state” that works as a check on policies that these career officials view as damaging. This time, the article focused on the potential re-election of Trump and how civil servants might resist his plans to overhaul public health policies if he brought in figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who advocate for fewer regulations in agencies like the FDA.

Instead of mocking the concept of a deep state, the 2024 article leaned into the idea, portraying these officials as stewards of scientific integrity and public safety. It emphasized their role in resisting untested or risky policies, framing them as a positive force. The Atlantic now implied that the deep state’s "resistance” to political leaders isn’t insidious but instead a stabilizing force—a check on erratic changes that might harm the public. This shift reflects a new narrative where the deep state isn’t a rogue element but a safety net.

A Changing Agenda?

The evolution of The Atlantic’s stance on the deep state reflects how narratives can shift over time, often aligning with broader media agendas. In 2017, the publication downplayed any concept of an internal resistance to elected authority. But by 2024, it presented bureaucratic resistance as a necessary safeguard against what it now framed as potentially harmful political interference.

But what about the American people?

The WarRoom audience readers might question this shift. The same bureaucratic resistance once brushed off as fantasy is now championed as a form of institutional “integrity”. The 2024 narrative shift may suggest a desire to protect certain policies or figures within the public health sphere from external changes demanded by an America First agenda, aligning with concerns voiced by figures in the current administration.

Why Narratives Change

The media’s role often extends beyond mere reporting to shaping how ideas are perceived. The Atlantic’s leftward shift from dismissing to defending the "deep state” shows how narratives can adapt based on who holds political power and what goals might be served. In 2017, the deep state idea was seen as an unlikely conspiracy. In 2024, it’s painted as a benevolent force, working to protect the public from potentially hazardous shifts. This narrative shift illustrates a broader trend: as political priorities evolve, so too can the framing of complex issues, often appearing to align with a media outlet’s evolving stance.

The Power of Framing

This shift raises questions about the media’s influence on public opinion. When a major publication alters its view from dismissal to endorsement, it shapes public understanding and trust. It underscores the idea that narratives in the media aren’t fixed—they’re malleable, adapting to shifting political winds. When media messaging seems to serve specific agendas, readers may feel compelled to dig deeper, recognizing that a secret hand shapes how we understand complex political dynamics.

Resources for this report: 

Atlantic 2017: There Is No American ‘Deep State’

Atlantic 2024: There Really Is a Deep State

For more context about the Atlantic article, see this clip of Natalie Winters talking about the article:

 


Source link

Search