The famous professor of communication, Walter Fischer, says - "Man is by nature a storyteller (Homo narians)." Fischer has written the book, "Human Communication as Narration" (1987). According to him, there are two main parts of human communication: logical (logical paradigm) and narrative (narrative paradigm).

The logical part is logical. Facts, evidence and research are its basis. It is objective. According to this, people take decisions based on logical analysis. Narrative communication is emotional. It has nothing to do with truth and reality.

This is subjective. According to this, people make decisions based on narrative rationality. Fischer concludes that narrative communication wins people's trust and influences their behavior more powerfully than logical communication.

But, how? First let us understand what narration is here. We may remember that when we were children, mothers/didis used to trick us into picking head lice by telling them that 'the lice take them to the peepal tree and hang them'. You may also remember that when you are in trouble, you used to cry that 'Jogi will take you away'. In the Hindi film 'Sole', there is a funny scene where mothers say to village children 'So Ja, Nahi To Gabbar Ajaega'.

There were no stories of lice hanging on trees, jogis taking them away or gabbers coming to villages. However, the fear of babbling in a head cold, pirah balakh or movie is real. In this way, the children were kept on the bus while the story was woven into the story. According to Fisher, a narrative is believable when it is presented in a credible manner, and when the story matches the thoughts, experiences, context, or preconceptions of potential sources. Therefore, everything heard and said cannot be a statement.

People are touched more by narrative or story than by facts and logic. Counterargument has its place in logical dialogue, counterargument is often secondary in narrative. Because, statements are connected to our biases and emotions. Narrative communication or the overall form of narration is commentary. Commentary can be both positive or negative. Commentary can turn heroes into villains and villains into heroes. Strategic commentators create stories by taking into account the biases and sentiments of the target audience. 

is now the era of narrative communication or commentary. The entire environment and infrastructure is such as to promote such communication. People have smart phones in their hands. Have access to and active presence in information networks. His activism is not only limited as a consumer of information, but also as a producer and distributor.

Thus, sociologist Manuel Castle (2009) says, “Today, everyone has become a mass communicator himself.” The rise of the new “celebrity” as an “influencer” in the network is the result. Also, there is information overload in the virtual world. Moreover, there is a growing tendency to overgeneralize everything. Such trends have created the perfect environment for the creation and promotion of commentary, which has changed the economic/political landscape around the world. 

The impact of commentary on politics

Common people are often led by commentary. His thoughts, understandings and decisions are influenced by popular commentary. A strategically crafted commentary can overturn an election result or the constitution itself. The role of commentary in unexpected election results around the world seems overwhelming. As a

, in 1992 Will Clinton emerged as a 'centrist' leader and leader. With the slogan of 'Third Way', that is, the third line, Clinton launched an economically liberal but politically social democratic program, which succeeded in winning the public opinion of the center-right and center-liberals. 

Barack Obama emerged with the slogan of 'change', while Trump managed to reach the White House twice with the slogan of 'making America great again'. Even in the 'Brexit' campaign, the impact of commentary is seen. The British at that time were not satisfied with the same political establishment. Simultaneously, the flood of immigration, national sovereignty, cultural identity and economic concerns were rife, leading most British citizens to conclude that leaving the European Union was not an option.

In a society where information literacy is high, commentaries have such an impact. In a society where freedom of speech is restricted, undereducated and polarized, the impact of commentary is even greater. Such an environment is considered ideal for both the production and consumption of commentary. Because, there is no counter-commentary, fact-checking, and open and logical debate like in liberal, educated and political society. Hence, it becomes a situation to ignore facts and logic, and believe in popular statements or commentary. As a

, it is not that Indian voters are not aware of Narendra Modi's exploits when he was Chief Minister in Gujarat. The public was aware of the role of the Modi administration in the Gujarat riots (2002) that killed more than a thousand citizens. Yet he accepted the 'Gujarat model' commentary in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, before which his controversial past became secondary.  Nepali public opinion guided by

commentary

In order to promote the panchayat system in Nepal, it was tried to establish a commentary saying 'All Five Nepali, All Nepali Panch'. The system could not survive the wave of global democratization. After the restoration of democracy, only our limited parties and politicians are in power. However, he has not been able to draw strong comments in his favor, so that his good image can be established.

Prime Minister KP Oli became a nationalistic figure during the Indian blockade. With his past, power struggles and geopolitical influence, it was not sustainable. Instead, misgovernance and corruption have flourished as leaders and parties sink into the clutches of power. As a result, negative comments have been made about the situation of the party and the country as a whole. Public opinion has become badly divided towards the behavior of leaders, parties and the future of the country.  Let's look at some home examples of how

commentary influences public opinion. There are many problems in Nepali journalism world. Due to the influence of interest groups, investment opacity and extreme partisanship, questions have been raised about the journalism profession and journalists. However, not all journalists can be lumped together. Many journalists are honest. There is no job security, no social security. You don't know when someone threatens you. Despite this, he has worked day and night due to his professional passion and thirst for journalism.

Similarly, RSVP Chairman Ravi Lamichhane's expression of '12 brothers' after the home minister and MP membership was removed was enough to humiliate all journalists and Nepali journalism. Almost a year later, Lamichhane himself publicly admitted that the comment was wrong. But where is it easy to change the established commentary? Nowadays, when everyone is not satisfied with news and the work of journalists, they tag 12 'brothers'.

Similarly, there is a story related to goats related to Nepali Congress General Minister Gagan Thapa. The government itself has made it clear that even though Thapa asked for agricultural subsidy for the goat farm, the funds were never released. However, many people, especially those who have preconceived notions about Gagan Thapa, seem to love the story more. Here, the context of Prime Minister KP Oli's investment campaign in Cambodia is also relevant, although this is a subject for further research. With the release of Oli's sensational video about external investment through medical practitioner Durga Prasai, many people believed it. Moreover, he immediately believed, already a critic of Oli.

When the public is ready to accept such stories, it does not take time for any interestingly promoted commentary to catch fire. The same applies to the ongoing investigation into Ravi. It seems that the general public has given Ravi the benefit of the doubt rather than the government. A thousand arguments, twisting the legal clauses, but they doubt that there is no revenge against Ravi. That is why it is said that justice is not only given, it should also be seen to be given.

'Tentacles' of disappointment

There are many commentaries related to politicians, parties, events, characters and geopolitics in Nepal. Because of the commentary, UML leader Ishwar Pokharel became 'Pani Tanki' and Congress leader Ramsharan Mahat's Tripalwala became 'Mim'. The impact of targeted commentary is limited, but the impact of targeted commentary on an organization, system or country is broad and long-lasting. For example,

, anti-leadership commentary has spread like wildfire. The election slogan 'No, Not Again' has not become that attractive. Similarly, the comment that the Nepali Congress is pro-India and harsh towards China, but the leftists are pro-China and anti-India has been alive for decades. 

In recent years, two compelling comments have dominated public discourse. One, discontent is prevalent in the society. Two, the country is no longer livable, the only option is to go abroad. These two commentaries are also interrelated. There are three main aspects behind the creation of such commentaries. One, poor state delivery and deteriorating reputation of public institutions. Second, shrinking traditional journalism and 'civic space'.

and, thirdly, the overwhelming influence of the network on public discourse. Firstly, the state and especially every government has not been able to 'deliver' even the minimum as per the people's expectations. Failure to do so naturally increases anti-authoritarian sentiments. Public institutions are riddled with partisanship. 'Meritocracy' is almost zero in every sector. For those who, despite their skill and ability, cannot take the party gamble, there is rarely a third option other than to blame fate or flee abroad.

Second, the entire field of journalism has become somewhat fragmented due to technology. As the economic health of the journalism sector is weak, the investment in 'content' is very low. The field of journalism, where social media has to cut rumors and commentaries and guide public debate, has reached a situation where it has to compete with the media itself. Also, civil society that advocates for the public interest and the voiceless is weakened by partisanship. His place has also been taken by the network, where statements sell more than arguments.

Thirdly, every character, context or issue has been overgeneralized through social media. On the network, either very good things are seen, or bad things. For example, the lifestyle of most Nepalis living abroad is often portrayed in a positive light. Relatives and friends who have gone abroad seem to have earned a lot, eaten deliciously, traveled the world, and had fun.

The bad aspects of the country are often discussed. As compared to the past, villages have reached Bataghata, education and health centers, but the land has become barren due to the exodus of youth. Children and youth are not found in village houses. In the past, unemployed and unskilled youth used to go for foreign employment.

Now the people who have attached their jobs and houses have also fled. It is not that there is no truth in the portrayal of the network. When such issues and contexts enter the public debate, and are overgeneralized, xenophobia and antipathy towards the homeland naturally increases in the public mind.

Population is an issue of intensive research. However, this commentary has become. What we need to understand and explain to the public is whether the expression of general frustration is fact or commentary? In Fischer's words, are we having a logical debate or a story in this context? There are many such examples, in which we need to distinguish between reality and commentary. Such questions become even more important in elections and other important public decisions.

epilogue It is not easy to get out of the maze of

commentary. In the wave of populism, the successful government and political leadership have been cast in the language of commentary. With us, the 'delivery' of the state is almost zero. People's trust in institutions has gone. Public debate is extremely polarized. In such a situation, the consumption of any commentary against the state, political parties and leadership and the government is fast and widespread.

is a powerful strategy to draw on to break up established narratives. But it is not as easy as gossip. Commentary can be refuted only when it works to win public trust. As Fisher says, people believe in talent when such work matches their thoughts, expectations, and needs.

Therefore, ensuring the strong delivery and governance of the state is the first condition to create an established narrative about an organization, system or country. 'Merit' had to be assimilated. It is not enough to say that you have done it, you have to be seen to have done it. Second, there had to be a strong and effective public debate with critical consciousness. Therefore, it is not enough to prepare a group of party workers and supporters.