How can I interpret the meaning of “narrative” in different situations?

Question

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, the meaning of "narrative" is defined as:

1. A description of events, especially in a novel.
2. The act, process or skill of telling a story.

However, the meanings of "narrative" used in the following three examples of sentences I recently came across don't appear to necessarily match either of the above definitions.

Here are three examples of sentences using the word "narrative". Can somebody rephrase the specific meaning of each in an easy-to-understand way for non native English learners like me?

---

(In Charlie Sheen’s show held in Detroit,) Audience growing restless. This show is all pump-up, no narrative. – The Guardian.

---

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies' narrative. – New York Times

---

The story of Capitol Hill's week on the brink — which brought Washington within an hour of a government shutdown — is a narrative of three men, each with a confining sense of his own limitations. – Washington Post

Answer 1

They are all variations on the "description of events" meaning:

• all pump-up, no story being told
• he's using it to tell (or perhaps "live according to") the story his enemies want to hear.
• is a story about three men, ...

Answer 2

What holds for me in all three examples is not narration itself but the idea of it. Each example points to an analyst who wants to deconstruct the subject in order to examine a key part, either to call out a specific defect or unusual form.

In the line on Charlie Sheen's show, it's easy to discern: "there's no story" would have been clearer and sufficient, in my opinion. I'd expect the rest of the article to elaborate in a way that justifies using "narrative."

Pundits often resort to the tools of metacognition to interpret what's "really" happening in a complex political story. In the second example, "position" would have done similar work. Perhaps the writer wants to imply something more dynamic, such as a sequence of related points that explains the hostility of those Republicans. Are they merely stubborn, or (gasp!) actually quite shrewd? This writer, like the Guardian writer, suggests he is seeing through the veil of action to discern motive; that's the point of metacognitive critique.

"Narrative of three men." "Story" does the same work. Unless the remainder of the article elaborates on this word choice, I'd say the writer just wanted to sound like he understands more than he lets on.