Skip to main content

Framing, as a theoretical concept, emerged from agenda setting--the notion that media coverage does not tell the public what to think, but it does have an effect in telling them what subjects to think about. (3)

Framing took agenda setting beyond audience salience and added that media coverage also indicated how that subject was to be approached by the audience, the acceptable range of terms, connections, and interpretations [...]

Framing also has roots in cognitive theories about how the human brain works. (6) It ties into schema theory, the idea that the synapses of our brains do not purely save and store facts. Instead, our brains link related ideas in associative patterns; ideas fitting patterns more easily find room than those with no existing "hook" to hold them.

Ideas need the right frame to have a lasting impact.

A frame must find a common "hook" in order to take up its new residence.

also from previous reference:

The bestselling book Don't Think of an Elephant!, subtitled Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, detailed some of the word choices with which the George W. Bush Administration subtly shifted public debate. Inheritance or estate taxes were called death taxes. Tax cuts were called tax relief because relief has a very strong positive connotation.

Mark D. Harmon, is an associate professor in the School of Journalism & Electronic Media. College of Communication and Information. University of Tennessee.
Robert Muenchen is at the Statistical Consulting Center. University of Tennessee.
Semantic framing in the build-up to the Iraq War: Fox V. CNN and other U.S. broadcast news programs

Framing your mental images and concepts, so others can "get them", can range from the innocuous, to the unforgettable;  and to many zones, in between.

The right frame can mean all the difference, to communicating your ideas. The wrong frame can end up burying your "truths" ... obscuring your causes.

The Choice of Images and the Choice of Language, can frame "the realities" for the audience. They form the Mental Pictures that can end up becoming part of their "world view" too.  

Here is a stunning case in point, of such "reality painting" at work:

Remembering Our Shared Past: Visually Framing the Iraq War on U.S. News Websites
Carol B. Schwalbe, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Arizona State University

The Visual Framing of War

Although definitions of framing differ, many share similar characteristics. Broadly speaking, a frame "is a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events.

The frame suggests what the controversy is about, the essence of the issue" (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987, p. 143).

More specifically, framing refers to patterns that emerge in the way the media select, organize, emphasize, present, and ignore certain aspects of words and/or images over others (Gitlin, 1980).

Picturing the Iraq War

During the 1991 Gulf War the pool system, censorship, and military escorts made it difficult for photojournalists to shoot the types of up-close pictures that had helped turn U.S. public opinion against the Vietnam War. A study of 1,104 Gulf War photos in Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report concluded that "remarkably little of the photo-journalistic coverage ... depicts actual combat activity of any kind" (Griffin & Lee, 1995, p. 821).

How did mainstream U.S. news websites visually frame the first five weeks of the [Iraq] war as an ongoing (contemporaneous) event?

Online news images initially focused on the official war machine, then shifted to the perspective of the ordinary person over the next four weeks.
The five collection times coincided with some of the invasion's major events: the initial attack (Week 1), the march to Baghdad (Week 2), the rescue of Jessica Lynch (Week 3), the toppling of Saddam's statue (Week 4), and the assertion of U.S. control (Week 5). The dominant visual frames, in turn, changed from week to week and reflected elements of the master war narrative [...]

Week 1: Conflict frame

Neuman, Just, and Crigler (1992) found that the most common frame used by the U.S. media was conflict between individuals, groups, or countries.

Week 2: Conquest frame

This study indicates that in the second week of the war, the visual frame had already shifted from shock and awe to the human face.

Week 3: Rescue frame

The human face continued into Week 3 (72.6% of dominant images, 58.4% of secondary images). One individual especially represented the human face of the war—the newly rescued U.S. soldier Jessica Lynch.

Week 4: Victory frame

In the fourth week U.S. forces had secured Baghdad, and victory seemed close at hand.

Week 5: Control frame

By the fifth week of the study, the war appeared to be over, as reflected in the declining number of war images.

This time around the Media framed its words and images, so that Americans were "told" what to think about the Iraq War, when; AND HOW to interpret those events, so that they would easily fit into our pre-existing mental landscapes.  So that we would hopefully, "accept this 'just' war" in a "generally positive" way.

In the 60's, by contrast, the Media treated Photo-Journalism more like responsible Reporting. They saw their role to communicate the awful truths of war. Back then it was not stage craft -- it was raw, it was real.  It was visual reporting that left a lasting impact.

I grew up in the 60s -- and it seemed to me that the War Protests then were quite over-rated -- in so far as bringing the war to an end; (Nixon was re-elected, with the war in tow.)

What ended the Vietnam war, in my opinion  -- was the TV images of war,
at so many Dinner hours
, night after night (and eventually, the "average" American started asking WHY?)

Lesson learned, or so we thought ... About the need to NEVER to fight another unjust war -- AGAIN!

But the Media, THEY learned a few lessons too.

They learned if you can cancel the images of war, if you can cancel the journalism, if you can stunt its realism -- THEN you can cancel the citizen outrage, you can mute their interest. You make the awfulness of war -- fade away, for the "average" American.

The Media-makers have learned to frame it in such a way, so that, that same "average" American, now finds the endless state of war(s) -- BORING!

Censorship of Media Reporting of U.S. Wars

In Vietnam, where war was never officially declared, the press enjoyed greater freedom from military censorship than it had in previous engagements, such as the Korean War and World War II. In addition, the growth of television reporting in Vietnam made this the first war whose sights and sounds were quickly available in American living rooms.
By the time of the Persian Gulf War, 24-hour-a-day, real-time coverage had become a reality, yet all reporting was also subject to intensive military censorship. Television played a vital role in shaping Americans' overwhelmingly enthusiastic response to the Gulf War. But, despite vastly improved means of covering the war, the various media were left with little to report other than exactly what the Allied leaders wanted people to see and hear.

Careful management of media access to the war meant that political and military leaders were able to frame the story in their own terms and, in effect, use the new technology for their own ends.

But WAR is anything BUT boring -- for those unknown souls, caught in its ceaseless crossfire.

But such are the Images we will no longer, see framed in stark relief, at the Dinner hour.

Americans have enough stress these days -- just leave us in peace, already!

The Media (and its directors) have trained us well ... As a country, we hardly even shrug, anymore.

Such are the Frames that the "average" American, has internalized, along with the endless rationalizations, to keep the world spinning on its axis.

Originally posted to Digging up those Facts ... for over 8 years. on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:38 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (12+ / 0-)

    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act -- George Orwell

    by jamess on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:38:08 PM PST

  •  Excellent diary jamess. (8+ / 0-)

    Nicely done.

    "The truth shall set you free - but first it'll piss you off." Gloria Steinem

    Save the Internet!

    by One Pissed Off Liberal on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:51:14 PM PST

  •  Was just thinking that it's definitely a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, Larsstephens

    tactic, to boldly step outside of the frame, "Topicality" i'd say from my debate days... but it is an effective tactic.

    When entering into the US HCR debate you must must not enter the Health Frame. It is Verboten - it is Teh Socialism! Boo!

    When one does start talking about Health, sick people, and healing, one must always be reminded to stay on track here, HCR is obviously, and incontrovertibly about Costs! It just doesn't even make sense to talk about it in terms of sick people and the health of American Citizens.

    It's amazing to think that you really do sound like a wacko when you talk about the need for healthy people and for sick people to get better. That kind of argument is SO far out to left field. It is not very germane to the argument.

    It's always 44,000 people die. And people are going to die...

    I think that's the ultimate in Bottom Line Politics. And there are a lot of Bottom Line Thinkers here on dKos.

    "That's Bottom Line Thinking, right there..."

    "Thats the same kind of bottom line thinking that got us into this mess."

    That bottom line thinking is bad for America

    We've got to think about more than the bottom line.

    The friggin' post office is about to close for crying out loud.

    Stamps are RAPIDLY approaching $.50 after 140 years. The OUTRAGE!!!

    What's the cost to send a letter via Fed Ex? What was it 10 years ago...

    Bottom Line thinking allows us to totally miss that fact.

    It's always, the post office is losing money!!! MY TAXES!!!

    The reality is that the post office has never really increased their costs, per inflation. Never a 39% increase over last year. Always a steady climb. Interestingly enough, the rate for services jumped quickly since Reagan, actually since Neo-Liberal economics, but Ron's where the rubber meets the road for me, so...

    Postal rates in 1863? .03

    They didn't hit .10 until 1974.

    The post office is a vital service for the People and businesses in this country and they perform that vital service well. They handle billions of pieces of mail and it always gets delivered in a couple of days. They come and get it, from you. The Post Office delivers!

    Nope... Can't have the discussion be about Public Service and competence...

    "They've been losing money forever. Stamp increase? Again!!!??? The post office sux."

    Fortunately there's no real hatred of the post office, but that's only because it hasn't been stoked.

    Bottom Line Thinking is a stencil. Outrage about anything is met with a cacophony of "Costs, efficiency, taxes - tax rebates, deregulation - government waste fraud and abuse". That train runs right on time.

    Grab a little spray paint, set the stencil down where you want it, and push the button and don't stop pushing. Carefully pick up the stencil when you're done using it, and Voila!... a pretty picture.

    We need to start calling them out on that.

    great piece, jamess...

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 09:56:53 PM PST

  •  Bottom Line Thinking vs Quality of Life (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, Larsstephens, dorkenergy

    You can't solve Quality of Life problems if you only use Bottom Line Thinking.

    If you only use Bottom Line Thinking you never rise above the bottom line.

    That's nice stuff right there, I think.

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 10:06:58 PM PST

  •  Step Back... Zoom Out a bit... look up. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, Larsstephens

    "You know, Phil here is really focused on the bottom line here. We need to look up from the bottom line and take a look at quality of life.

    The realit is that:

    Creating jobs does us no good if those jobs are created in china. Positive Economic growth, but a weakening of America.

    and the crowd goes wild.

    "Phil here is making this bottom line argument about quarterly profits and I'm talking about us stepping up and taking responsibility  for the quality of life of our People. We've got to move on climate change...

    Bottom Line or Quality?

    Quality is doing it better. Striving for better. Quality is better.

    Bottom line is conservative. It's reduction. It's less than better.

    Settle... People 'settle for the bottom line'.

    You can settle with the bottom line all you want. I want more than that. I want Americans to have better healthcare, period - not health insurance, not bankruptcy by medical extortion... It should always get better. We should strive for quality medicine, not settle for 37th in the developed world because it meets someone's ideas of a solid bottom line.


    People think that's a solid bottom line, everybody's insured. It's good, right?

    But when we start to look for quality healthcare, it just isn't there. In fact this is all about insurance and not care.

    You know what? I want healthcare. When I get sick, I want to be treated by a doctor and get healthy. If that means subscribing to a private healthcare service, fine. I'd rather have a public service for myself because I would not want to fall victim of some desperate CEOs bottom line when my health is on the line.

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 10:31:37 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site