The Information Council of the Social Capital Erosion Project
According to Iran Gate News Agency, the recent meeting of the government’s Information Council with the government’s harsh critics was neither a sign of communicative maturity nor a start to dialogue, but rather a warning sign of a deeper crisis at the heart of the Maskian government. A crisis that begins with an inability to narrate and ends with a slow yet dangerous erosion of the social capital of its supporters. The council, which was supposed to be the government’s voice, has now become a symbol of silence, passivity, and media confusion, and the cost of this situation is borne not by the critics but by the same activists who were the backbone of the government’s electoral victory yesterday.
The Government’s Information Council: From Inability to Narrate to Unintentional Betrayal of Social Capital
The recent meeting of the government’s Information Council with critical media activists turned into a full reflection of the deeper crisis in the Maskian government regarding media understanding, narrative management, and the preservation of social capital. This crisis is neither sudden nor merely the result of a single session or wrong decision, but rather the outcome of a chain of inactions, conservatisms, and strategic errors committed by the government’s Information Council in recent months.
The main issue is not why the government is talking to its critics; the issue is that when the government has not even been able to communicate with its supporters, what does this dialogue with critics mean? A dialogue that is formed not from a position of strength but from a position of weakness, not only fails to produce capital but also makes the weakness public and exacerbates it.
The Information Council: An Institution That Did Not Understand Time
The Maskian government’s Information Council began its work under conditions where the government faced a series of accumulated crises: a turbulent economy, a weary society, eroded public trust, and a polarized media environment. In such conditions, the council’s task should have been to construct the government’s narrative—a coherent, transparent, and defensible narrative that could convince even fair critics and at least retain supporters.
However, what happened was nothing but a permanent suspension in media decision-making. The council neither constructed a narrative, defended existing narratives, nor even managed to translate crises into a language understandable to public opinion. The result was an information vacuum immediately filled by opponents, hostile media, and even internal critics. In politics, a narrative vacuum is never neutral; it always acts against the power holder.
Meeting with Critics: A Wrong Signal at the Wrong Time
The recent meeting was held precisely in such a context—a meeting attended by figures who, for months, have not only been critical of the government’s policies on social media, especially Twitter, but have also undermined its media legitimacy. These individuals are not representatives of the silent public opinion but part of the loud opposing or radical critical movement against the government.
The problem is that the Information Council decided, without first organizing the government’s media supporters, supporting them, or even listening to their voices,
to suddenly start interaction from a place that had the highest symbolic cost for it.
This action, whether intentional or unintentional, conveyed the message that
the government has time for critics but not for its supporters.
In communication politics, such a message is far more destructive than a wrong executive decision.
Twitter: An Abandoned Field, Not a Lost Field
Without exaggeration, Maskian’s election campaign was one of the few campaigns that drew a significant portion of its energy from social networks, particularly Twitter. This space was a place for meaning production, defense, persuasion, and even political mobilization. However, after the elections, the government’s Information Council, with strange behavior, seemed to decide to abandon this field.
There was no specific strategy for active presence, no communication lines defined with supportive activists, and no minimal support against organized attacks was provided.
As a result, supportive activists found themselves in an unequal position, having to defend a government that was not even willing to defend itself.
This situation naturally led to the erosion of motivation, increased silence, and ultimately a shift of part of the supportive base towards public criticism. This shift was neither betrayal nor opportunism but a natural reaction to the feeling of being unimportant.
The Crisis of Courage: The Blind Spot of the Information Council
At the heart of all these failures lies a fundamental issue: the crisis of media courage of the government’s Information Council. Instead of taking responsibility for narrative building, it sought refuge in a low-risk policy of saying little and waiting. However, in today’s world, this policy is not low-risk but extremely costly.
When the government remains silent at critical moments, when it does not explain, when it does not defend its decisions, this silence is interpreted as weakness, doubt, or even concealment. Meeting with critics without clear accountability to public opinion is not a sign of maturity but an indirect admission of inability to manage the narrative.
The Final Result: Slow but Deep Erosion
What is seen today in the media space and social networks is not an explosive crisis but a gradual yet deep erosion. The erosion of trust, motivation, and social capital poses a danger that, if not controlled, will manifest as the government’s inability to mobilize public opinion in future critical moments—elections, economic crises, or social tensions.
If the Maskian government’s Information Council continues on this path, it will unintentionally become an institution that not only does not help the government but is one of the main factors in its weakening.
Open End: It’s Not Too Late, but Time Is Short
Rebuilding this situation is possible, but not with symbolic meetings or cost-free gestures. This rebuilding requires redefining the mission of the Information Council, returning to the supportive base and listening to their voices, transparency, clarity, and unreserved defense of the government’s decisions, and accepting the reality that in the war of narratives, neutrality does not exist.
Otherwise, the government’s Information Council will become a symbol of missed media opportunities, losing its social capital not in the field of competition but in silence and passivity.
