Competing Narratives within Commmunication Ethics

 The book defines a narrative, in its most simple terms, as "a story agreed upon by a group of people". The concept of narrative is an interesting one because it has such a vast impact on how we understand things. The difference in the narrative is what can separate two groups of people looking at the exact some happening. The multiplicity of narratives can create ideas that come into conflict with each other. This is constantly happening around us. It can be seen in all ideas, from political debates to personal friendships. It impacts our understanding of what is "good", and without understanding the different points of view, it can be almost impossible to come to an understanding of the "common good".

I think one example of the multiplicity of narratives that we can all see in our everyday lives is clear through the media. Narratives are pushed for a variety of reasons, but oftentimes one we see the most in the public sphere is the political agenda. Each party brings up issues through a different lens; whichever lens is useful to their ideologies. In the past 2 years or so, we have seen an influx of news coverage on the Black Lives Matter movement. On one side, the narrative is that those involved in this movement are pushing for positive change in order to save the lives of black men and women. On the other side, the narrative is that this organization exists to condemn cops and take their livelihood from them. With such intensely conflicting  narratives, some people may struggle to come to a conclusion of their own. 

I think that when it comes to conflicting narratives, people will often choose the one they find to be more ethical and persuasive. This is one reason why ethics are so deeply important to communication. When being pulled in two directions, people will likely come to your side when they are able to see that it is accurately portrayed, rather than made up of half-truths and misrepresentations.