The “revelation” that Varoufakis had a contingency plan for Grexit after all has led to the filing of two lawsuits, one by the Mayor of Stylida and the other by the head of a new political party Teleia – which translates as ‘full-stop’ (yes really).

By sandie Robb

At the moment Varoufakis is protected by political immunity and will not have to face trial unless the Greek Parliament decrees otherwise. But as talk of ‘treason’ gains traction it’s important to remember what our frame of reference for all of these events is – the media.

Everything we think we know about this crisis, every opinion we have formed and our knowledge of the people involved, including Varoufakis, starts with what we read and watch and how we then process that narrative or ‘story.’

It’s important to grasp that news narratives come with an array of potential variables that might influence how we see them, the cultural experiences of the author for example or the pre held-prejudices of the reader.

The question then is how those involved, whether it’s the IMF, Greece or the EU, can push the public to accept their version of the narrative because capturing the public’s much coveted validation provides a cloak of legitimization for decisions.

The answer is media manipulation. The systematic warping of news narratives happens everyday almost everywhere. To demonstrate this we can start by doing what governments and institutions such as the EU do daily – analyze the media output.

Greece = Corruption

In the run-up to the Greek elections in January, when it was looking likely that Syriza would win, global news related to ‘corruption’ in Greece skyrocketed and has maintained relatively high levels until now 

Yet, during the same period no major corruption scandals came to light. Syriza as a virgin government can claim to be untainted at that time. So why with the arrival of Syriza is there a corruption narrative flooding the airwaves and printing presses and sticking there?

The media monitoring software reveals that this ‘corruption related to Greece’ news is present overwhelmingly in the IMF’s homeland – America (see below). It’s important to point out here that stories starting in the US impact massively because they are regurgitated far and wide.

Understanding the corruption narrative is crucial to this tale because it is so horribly powerful. It propagates the idea of “self-blame” which has been used with alarming frequency in the US media in recent times. Its primary purpose is to absolve those in power of fault. ‘You’re homeless? Well you should have worked harder!’

Professor Naom Chomsky identifies the ‘self-blame’ narrative as one of “10 strategies of manipulation” used by the media. Chomsky tells ThePressProject, “The [US] media played a role [in the Greek crisis] insofar as they repeated myth and illusions and suppressed what was actually happening.  There were notable exceptions, like Paul Krugman in the New York Times, Mark Blyth in Foreign Affairs, and some others.”

Interestingly the use of self-blame has also been cited as a habitual feature of colonial reasoning, whereby responsibility for the plundering, suppression and general havoc wrought by the colonizers goes unacknowledged and is instead blamed on the colonized.
  

Haters Gonna Hate

In Fig.3. the data reveals, somewhat bizarrely, that media mentioning “Varoufakis” and “hated” enters the discourse at precisely the time the newly elected Syriza government formed a coalition – January 26th. The numbers are smaller that the ‘Greece-corruption’ output, but it is there nonetheless.

‘Hated’ could be a personal reference or it could be with regards to policy or a whole multitude of things, but its mere presence alongside ‘Varoufakis’ is questionable because at that time he had not been around long enough to actually do anything that might be ‘hated’ in the media. So why does the data show otherwise?

One possible explanation is that the EU, IMF and Greece’s circle of despotic media owners saw in Varoufakis a credible threat and one they meant to pre-empt. The then finance minister was an accomplished economist and academic who did not agree with the status quo and was very vocal about it. He fast showed himself to be that most dangerous of things – a politician that people could actually understand – and worse still he could communicate matters of economics.
Varoufakis was going from one newspaper and TV station to the next ripping apart the nonsensical narratives in defence of austerity and exposing the sham policies of the Troika in a way that resonated with people across the globe.

It was clear that Varoufakis, unlike his toothless ‘yes-men’ predecessors, was not going to play ball.  Instead he was going to be a thorn in the Troika’s proverbial side. He simply had to go.
 

A Daily Dose of Discredit

A veritable hate campaign ensued designed to discredit and eliminate Varoufakis from the picture. It’s a David and Goliath story on steroids – the EU and IMF’s public relations and spin machines with their combined hundreds of millions of euros financing versus Varoufakis’s twitter account and blog.

Emotive words including ‘hated, isolated and crazy’ were dropped surreptitiously into the mainstream media. Incidentally the US tops the charts once again (by a massive margin) for the highest presence of the word “hated” alongside “Varoufakis”.

But the vast majority of articles were not so direct with their language. Instead they used “loaded language” to infer the same thing. Loaded language in the media refers to words that are seemingly innocuous but actually carry much emotional weight; they act in essence as ‘trigger’ words.

When we read that Varoufakis is “out-spoken”, or “a maverick,” or “unorthodox,” (see Fig. 4.) those loaded terms trigger in us negative interpretations of a pushy, difficult and strange person. Though most of us have never met Varoufakis we will fast form an idea of him.

It could well be that Varoufakis has all those negative personality traits and more to boot, but there is no way to know for sure without spending significant time with the man. What we do know is that none of those characteristics should necessarily detract from how he manages his job.

This gives us something else to consider, and that is the context in which the media frames its narratives. Varoufakis had to be vocal and forthright because from day one he was confronted with one of the most hostile work environments in the world. Pushing for change within a circle of modern day courtesans and their emperor is no small feat and it’s this crucial situational context that is many times missing from the narrative.

The Greek media, an all too often complicit accomplice to these damaging news output, rather than protecting its national interests as everyone else was doing (see Part II) instead served to further compound the problem. The handful of media despots running the show in Greece absolutely did not and do not want Varoufakis altering their cosy arrangement as puppet masters of the country’s politicians. Especially when he had made it very clear that their era of rule was going to be under the spotlight like never before.

It’s also possible that there was a more sinister ploy behind targeting Varoufakis so early on in the debate – to provoke regime change. If enough pressure were placed on Syriza to cause a schism between Varoufakis and Tsipras the latter may well have lost his majority thereby forcing general elections.

This would be the antidote to the venom poisoning the EU’s position on their austerity policy – their fear of other upstart eurozone leftist movements demanding change too. The repeatedly present Varoufakis is “isolated” narrative (see Fig.3.) may well be one that fits into such a scheme.

Perhaps the most revealing data of the ectopic nature of today’s news can be found in Fig.4. This chart shows the “sentiment” (how positive or negative) of the media over the past five months towards Varoufakis. What is of note here is the single green bar poking out.

The green bar indicates that on one specific day – May 3rd – there was an unusual rush of positive news. If one were to bet on what happened that day to cause such joy in the news world the smart money would be on Varoufakis offering his resignation. In fact, it was the opposite. That is the day he announced he would not be resigning.
 

We Hate the IMF

On the 29th of June (after the referendum was announced by the Greek government and capital controls were imposed) there was a tsunami-like surge in media activity. Except now Varoufakis was not the only focus of ire. Around this time the IMF and the EU saw their popularity levels facing the threat of an extraordinary pummelling.

Confronted with a deluge of negative news output (see Fig.6 above) the IMF moved fast to distance themselves from the EU and shore up credibility. Just days later (2nd July) Lagarde announced that, actually, Greece’s debt would need a haircut after all. They had masterfully employed the media manipulation technique of “distraction” (also one of Chomsky’s top ten).

In one fell swoop the IMF had steered the media narrative away from questioning their disastrous role in the Greek debacle (and various other IMF induced global economic debacles) to one of being a harbinger of hope and moderation.

In reality the IMF were asking for what Varoufakis and a number of the world’s leading economists had asked for all along. Nothing had changed in the IMF’s doctrines or ethics; the only change had been public opinion. A responsive press finally galvanized by outrage into breaking from the ‘xerox journalism’ cycle of reproducing news that did nothing to advance narratives had made a difference.

And therein lays the moral of this particular article’s narrative; in the end public opinion is a more powerful force than anything else in the world today. With that in mind, the question we need to ask ourselves is do we really hate Varoufakis and hold him responsible for a deal concocted as a punishment package by the EU…or have we been conditioned by (a mostly) unwitting media for the past five months to think that we do? 

*Images and data courtesy of Meltwater