It was sometime last week as I was aggregating that I had some thoughts go through my mind that could be summarized as "The narrative is the job." and while I don't remember all of the details of what I was thinking at the time I did jot down that one sentence fragment and I do for the most part have the gist of what I was thinking. It may lack some of the magic it could have had when it was a fire in my mind, but I am going to take a stab at it anyway. That's why I wrote down the fragment. :)

There are a lot of jobs out there that I believe the actual NARRATIVE becomes the job rather than the job that the person is supposedly doing. This may seem like common sense to many of you as soon as I stated it. That is why I only needed that fragment to remind myself. However, a friend and coworker of mine did essentially point out that what we call "common sense" doesn't seem so common these days. I tend to agree.

Think about it like this. Once you affiliate with a political party as a representative. It is most likely you do not end up representing the constituents who elected you. If you did, the rest of the party would use propaganda and other methods to see that you didn't remain in office soon. They'd keep repeating until they found someone that went along with the narrative they wish to push.

In the current political climate this should be obvious. If you are part of the Democrat tribe you can sum up pretty much the entire narrative as "Hate Trump" and somehow they don't care that this clearly is not representing their constituents. In fact, the rest of the job doesn't seem to matter as long as they "hate Trump". It often leads me to wondering what they will do when there is no Trump. I realized that most of their narrative requires finding a victim and people to hate. Hate is what drives them while talking about how wonderful and tolerant they are. Sure they might tolerate you right into your little hole where no one can hear you speak and if you look out of the hole you'll be beheaded by some comedian that gleefully holds up your severed head while talking about how hateful you were.

Yet it isn't just there. It is also in journalism. The retraction to something found to be flawed if it comes at all will be almost covert and unnoticed compared to the overt and loudly repeated voicing of the lies. Sometimes the lie is so popular they will continue repeating it even after they had released a covert retraction. For those that don't know what a retraction is. It means they were wrong, and the retraction is them acknowledging that.

It doesn't just stop there.

Climate Change... or if you were around long enough. They originally called it Global Warming. Though before that they warned of an impending Ice Age for a brief period. However, the narrative became fixed in stone when politicians became involved. I suspect it is because they saw the avenue in terms of a power grab that the non-solution known as the Carbon Tax would offer them. They played upon the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (aka FUD) and used all manner of logical fallacies to spread their narrative (aka Propaganda).

When the lead scientists were caught in their own emails fudging their numbers in what was briefly known as climate gate they eventually brushed that under the rug and carried on with the narrative.

When prediction after prediction kept failing to manifest and sometimes was the opposite they doubled down. Playing upon the short term memories and unwillingness of the public to research. They continued with the Appeal to Authority Fallacies combined with Appeal to Popularity (aka bandwagon) when referring to 97% of scientists believing in man made (anthropogenic) climate change. Yet it has come out that this was projected from two papers and the authors of those papers assumed the stance of some scientists from reading their own work. Since then some of those authors they cited have been approached and have said no that was not their stance, and that they were never asked. As to the 97%. They didn't poll all scientists. They projected it from those two papers and it is clear those papers were not based upon polls either, but simply studying papers.

By the way most of those inaccurate models come from the guys caught fudging results in climate gate.

Even if it is true. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. It does have some credibility when you consider probabilities IF it is true that it was a consensus and not just some projection that is MAYBE accurate. Yet the scientific method itself does not have a component of consensus. Consensus is a form of bias. The scientific method exists to try to eliminate bias. IT also NEVER considers asking questions a bad thing.

People asking questions about an aspect of climate change are often met with hatred and called things like "Denier" and some people even advocate them being put to death. (Propaganda) This is not science. It is closer to religion. It is not science. It is protecting the narrative. Science is no longer the job.

The narrative is the job...

EDIT: Bonus... Think about Lawyers. Their job is to try to get their preferred narrative to be believed.