Just processing a thought….
I remember how Pastor Joel Osteen was persecuted in the media for not opening his church to flood victims in Houston. As I recall 2 guys posted a video showing a section of the church that as clearly not flooded with some harsh words to say about Pastor Osteen. Social media took up the story and everyone seemed to have an opinion about it and seemed to be against Pastor Osteen. However, by the time Pastor Osteen explained his side of the situation no one wanted to hear it. Everything he said was dismissed. It seems the negative narrative about the pastor was the first bit of information the public heard and so that is what stuck most in everyone’s mind.
Could this be how the smear campaign starts for targeted individuals (TI). Someone comes along directing the community to focus in on a specific event regarding the TI (the church not being flooded) and then tells lies or half truths to incite anger against the TI (not explaining the water receded and the church had already decided to open the church back up the following Tuesday). The perpetrator is passionate and sincere towards the people affected by the targeted persons actions (flood victims of Houston, TX) thus, inciting an extreme dislike or hatred towards the TI. So by the next day, the Targeted Individual (Pastor Osteen) is blind sided when he wakes up to a world that hates him.
I think TIs could relate to how this went down for Pastor Osteen. A smear campaign was started. It was told in a believable way so people accepted the lie or half truth. People then felt “entitled” to hate the TI. The TI wakes up one day to a sh*t storm not of their making.
Why do people believe the negative narrative even when the accused explains the other side of the issue? Is it because they heard the negative information first and the first story had longer to circulate and sink in to the subconscious?
Everyone heard his perpetrators side of the story. Here is Pastors Joel Osteen’s side.