Narrative: Wall street triangulater may sell out the children:
[Bonus negative narrative words: Cozy with Wall Street, Triangulate]
I'm just using random articles from the last few weeks, if I did them all I'd have to write one article every day and I can't right now. But here's another easy to read negative narrative piece from the NYT about Hillary Clinton:
Here's a pretty disgusting one. Hillary has been championing for children her entire life. So the NYT is going to try to erode something in the mind of readers that she holds very close to her heart and that she is well-known to care about. *shudder*. This one actually hurt to read.
This is targeted at a specific audience: The far left of the democratic party for whom "Wall Street" are trigger words. This article is designed to plant apprehension about Hillary Clinton's dedication to childhood education. And by the way, she cares about children and their welfare a great deal, so if the conclusion is she would sell them out, that makes her the evil person the NYT would love everyone to believe. We'll get to how easy that works for them in a moment.
Already, she is being pulled in opposite directions on education. The
pressure is from not only the teachers who supported her once and are
widely expected to back her again, but also from a group of wealthy and
influential Democratic financiers who staunchly support many of the same
policies — charter schools and changes to teacher tenure and testing — that the teachers’ unions
have resisted throughout President Obama’s two terms in office.
??? What? how is she being pulled? Did someone make a request? Where's the pressure? Did she have to make a choice somewhere? Nope. Nope. Nothing.
And the financiers say they want Mrs. Clinton to declare herself.“This
is an issue that’s important to a lot of Democratic donors,” said John
Petry, a hedge fund manager who was a founder of the Harlem Success
Academy, a New York charter school. “Donors want to hear where she stands.”
"they want HC to declare" sorta makes it seem as if they're demanding that she speak now, but it's really much more passive when it comes from the mouth of the person they're referring to "donors want to hear where she stands".
And that's it for how she is "caught between". That's it. That's the entire article's premise and it comes down to some hedge fund guy who "was a founder" of a charter school says "donors want to hear where she stands". That's it. That's what the article is based on. And btw, which donors are those? Just... "donors"?
And now let's get down some information about our current president on the issue and how it relates to the future:
The growing pressure on education points out a deeper problem that Mrs.
Clinton will have to contend with repeatedly, at least until the Iowa
caucuses: On a number of divisive domestic issues that flared up during
the Obama administration — trade pacts, regulation of Wall Street, tax
policy — she will face dueling demands from centrists and the liberal
base of the Democratic Party.
okay, fair enough, wait, where are the magic scary words? Oh, here they are:
Some progressives already view Mrs. Clinton as overly cozy with Wall
Street. And should she align herself with the elite donors who favor an
education overhaul, many of them heavyweights in the investment world,
it could inflame the liberal Democratic base. [Hey guys, this is you! Get crazy!]
Meme: Clinton = Wall Street. And they continue to suggest her decision on childhood education is automatically political. Read even just her Wiki page started after graduating college and you'll see why it sucks to see them even dare go there.
Magic word alert, here it comes:
...but he said he was concerned: “She has had more longstanding ties to the
teachers’ union, certainly, than Obama ever had. She’s thrown some
bones to both sides and I think is sort of trying to triangulate on
this.”
Ding ding ding. triangulate is an OLD meme related to Mr. Clinton (who does triangulate but you will very very very rarely see this word used toward anyone else other than the Clintons), this word comes up during election time only. And NYT has made sure to get it in regarding childhood education, smooth. And that's why I'm writing this, because it works but once you learn how to spot this junk, you'll see if for what it really is.
Other gems to push the narrative: Mrs. Clinton has plenty of time to maneuver before taking sides -NYT
It would have been impossible for the NYT to omit that Hillary Clinton has cred with educators.
Mrs. Clinton will at least not have to establish credibility on the subject. Her
involvement with efforts to overhaul education dates back at least to
the early 1980s, when her husband named [yeah, that's it folks, just stuff her husband named her as, fu nyt] her co-chairwoman of an Arkansas
committee that called for a teacher-competency test, smaller classes
and a higher dropout age. As a senator, she voted for No Child Left Behind in 2001, but later attacked the law, saying it was failing children.
DOH. Look at that, she voted for it, then attacked it. Any reason for that? *shrug*, musta just changed her mind maybe. As did Ted Kennedy and every other liberal who worked on the program.
I cannot, tell you, how thankful I am that they gave the education professional the final word. Because when the NYT is not speaking, and someone else is, it goes something like this:
But she rejected the idea that Mrs. Clinton would set policy based on anything other than “her experience and the evidence.” “She
has been versed in these issues for a long time, and will give everyone
a fair hearing and a fair shot, but she will look at it through the
lens of what’s good for kids. Period,” Ms. Weingarten said. “Anybody who
thinks otherwise just doesn’t know her.”
NOW LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT HOW WELL THESE PIECES WORK WITH THEIR TARGET AUDIENCE. From the comments:
"If she continues to triangulate, wanting to please everybody and
displease no one, with her ambition her only constant, she might get the
nomination, but she will likely lose the Presidency; even to half-mad
Republican candidates that might trump Mrs. Clinton in the authenticity
department".
see that? Instantly the commenter parroted GOP meme words and proclaims her to be inauthentic.
This group is very easily fooled. 1, because even as a former reader, you believe the NYT. 2. They have been hearing this narrative for so long that when it is strung together in what seems like a real article it all seems to fit. Furthermore, progressives are so convinced they are geniuses that they are thoroughly
convinced they're opinions come from actual information. Fail.
"I honestly wonder if there's any issue left on which she has an absolute, unmovable opinion".
"I think it's possible that she will come out with a position that's best for Hillary".
"Just another example of what Hillary stands for or not or maybe. Given her past performance--she will side with the wealthy donors. How sad for us progressives and even more so--how sad for the US.
ALERT: There was NO example. She did not make a choice. Nor can one of these people come up with a time that she sided with a wealthy donor.
See how easy it is to fool people? These comments were from the first comments, which means highest rated. I didn't have to go far to look for them. There are 100's that say the exact same thing.
SHE BETTER CHOOSE RIGHT!!! That apprehension delivered by the NYT.
But after all:
she prepares for a likely second run at the White House, Mrs.
Clinton is re-entering the fray like a Rip Van Winkle for whom the
terrain on education standards has shifted markedly, with deep new
fissures in the Democratic Party.
