Draw upon the lecture and readings to describe how some prominent event or issue have been framed in the media. Specifically, what frames have been used in which media outlets? What do the frames draw attention to and what do they divert attention from? What reframings have occurred?
46 thoughts on “Framing in the Media”
Comments are closed.
In 1992 while George H.W. Bush was President of the United States and running for re-election, he had a problem with his image and identifying with the average American or the “common man” because he had come from a privileged background. In order to combat this idea, he attended a National Grocer’s Convention in Florida. While at this event, he was photographed examining an exhibit that was demonstrating the use of checkout-scanner technology that had already been around for 10-15 years, but that had been improved upon over time. A writer for the New York Times read about the news from a newspaper in Houston, Texas and framed the story into the idea that because President Bush was so amazed and unfamiliar with this technology, he truly was out of touch with the “common man” and can’t relate to the average American and their regular experiences. In reality, he was marveling at the improvements that had been made to the equipment such as its ability to weight produce and scan ripped or destroyed bar codes.
I would consider this an example of thematic framing because this single experience at the convention was used to convince the American public that their current President was out of touch with society and therefore unable to relate to the American public as a whole. The frame draw attention to criticisms of President Bush such as that he is out of touch with the interests of the average American and, therefore, not the best candidate for President and the frame draws attention away from focus on the young Democratic Presidential candidate, Bill Clinton.
Building off of that, I always find it entertaining when the media portrays a politician as “out of touch” for not knowing the price of milk. As a lactose intolerant American, I have no idea how much a gallon of milk costs – I guess I should never run for office!
With the 2016 Presidential Election coming up, I am interested to see how the presidential candidates will try to frame their own images and just how far from the truth these frames will be.
This reminds me of when Reagan ran against Carter. Carter released an image from Reagan’s acting days where he was posing with a monkey. This perpetuated the idea that Reagan was not fit to be a leader. Would we really want a leader who posed with monkey? (Personally, yes.)
It didn’t work.
Agreed, Annette. That’s a fantastic framing example that seemingly doesn’t bode well for Bush’s image. I really appreciate being so much more aware of framing tactics, especially for next year’s presidential election!
I thought it was very interesting to see how certain news networks and newspapers reported on the “2014 war” while it was occuring. I can recall that CNN was reporting the events similarly to how the New York Times framed the story that you’ve referenced above. While it’s very difficult to determine who is in the right and wrong regarding many issues about the “2014 war” and Israel-Palestinian relations. I think it might be more prudent in this type of situation that the news were reported using traditional journalism, instead of public journalism as we discussed last week.
Craig, I agree that traditional journalism is more reliable than public journalism when it comes to reporting on current issues in conflict zones. Here, framed articles especially those that appeal to emotions, may prevent a reader from learning more about the issue, and instead to be swayed by sensational content in the articles.
It’s also very interesting where each headline places the UN. In the Wall Street Journal headline, it appears that the UN is clearly placing the blame of the incident on Israel. The Wall Street Journal headline also explicitly states there were fatalities. The New York Times headline on the same issue also depicts Israel as the aggressor by stating that it attacked UN schools, but does not make any mention of fatalities.
Looking at different people and publication’s reactions to the rioting that has been happening in Baltimore; I see two frames of this event emerging.
One frame views these rioters as criminals. Baltimore’s Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and President Obama have called these rioters “thugs” during public speeches that they made in response to this event. And CNN in their news coverage of the Baltimore riots is also framing these rioters as criminals. In this linked CNN segment, which shows Wolf Blitzer interviewing community organizer DeRay McKeeson, Wolf Blitzer constantly tries to get the community organizer to admit that the rioters are committing a crime, and doing something that is wrong.
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/29/ferguson_activist_perfectly_schools_wolf_blitzer_you_are_suggesting_broken_windows_are_worse_than_broken_spines/
Meanwhile many other publications are framing what the rioters are doing with a “thematic frame”; that what these rioters are doing is not simply committing a crime. Their actions need to be analyzed in s bigger context. In the same posted video, the DeRay McKesson notes that these communities in Baltimore have faced sustained discrimination from the police. He then goes on to make the argument that rioting is not at the same level of criminality as the police killing a person; after all property that is destroyed can be rebuilt, but people who are killed cannot return to live.
There are other publications out there who recognize these frames and are pointing them out. This article from “The New York Post” on the media coverage of the Baltimore Riots is titled, “Liberals Make Excuses for Baltimore Riots”.
http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/liberals-make-excuses-for-baltimore-riots/
The first frame draws attention away from the history of discrimination and poverty that the African American community have faced for decades. The second frame is trying to draw attention to this fact.
I find Mr. McKesson’s frame of the issue interesting, but more controversial than anything else. I personally believe that responding to violence with violence almost always leads to more violence, and when peaceful protestors begin to engage in criminal activities it usually demeans the value of the message they are trying to send to the public, unnecessary police brutality, in this case. While the message the rioters send to the public is extreme, framing the issue to show how these actions are less harmful to individual’s lives than the police brutality can certainly begin a unique dialogue about the subject.
I agree that that would be an interesting addition to the dialogue around this subject.
I wonder if this frame will help cause the media to shift their focus from the frame of “rioters are criminals”. I absolutely agree that violence is not the answer. However, I think that mass media stations using this frame to report on this situation in Baltimore really hampers any nuanced deliberation in news stations on this subject.
I was intrigued with this as well. The use of “thug” to describe rioters, regardless of criminal activity, diverts attention away from the more difficult issues facing African Americans. Although, I would call anyone engaged in criminal activity a thug.
I agree with Craig below. I was shocked, shocked to hear that Obama and the mayor referred to the rioters as thugs. I think that they were trying, and rightfully so, to differentiate between peaceful protesters and the rioters, but the strong language seemed to be more salacious than the message. I think this frame detracted from the issues at hand, and the continued use and expansion of that frame will delay addressing systematic racism in Baltimore.
On May 2nd, the NY Times printed an article with the headline, “Hands-Free Cars Take Wheel, and Law Isn’t Stopping Them.” This article examines how the technology is evolving faster than law surrounding the issue, and that enforcement will be an issue going forward. It would be interesting to see this article written from the perspective of , or a business-oriented publication that would be interested in how this would effect the automobile market.
Instead of simply reporting that there are hands-free vehicles in production, this article focuses on the legal regulations that are not in place for such technological growth. The article frames the invention of hands-free vehicles as dangerous and in need of regulation.
This is a great example of framing, where the focus is diverted to dangerous effects while ignoring any positive impacts.
Though I don’t think you can bring up the topic and disregard the legal issues that accompany it, it would definitely be fascinating to read an article that took a more corporate perspective on the subject.
Ooh, I was covering law and tech in one of my other classes. This reminded me of an idea, where law technically cannot apply to a machine. You can’t say, “bad car, you messed up, now you have to do something to make up for it.”
Also I agree, it would be a completely different piece if it was written by someone with a vested interest in the current auto industry; or someone with an interest in the technology itself, as it seems inevitable.
It would be great to see writing from a perspective that takes into account more the challenges of adapting society to this upcoming technology, instead of worrying about the potential dangers of equipment which at the very least, is safer than humans!
This is a great example of framing in the media. The title is catching, it draws in the reader to either read the rest of the article, or draw their own conclusions from the title. It seems like a typical way the media likes to grab the readers attention and draw away from the bigger issue at hand by adding a catchy title. In a way it puts the bigger issue as comical to draw in bigger ratings.
You bring up an excellent question, about how the pro-business framing of this technological innovation would most likely highlight the benefits of hands-free driving. It is important that the public read the New York Times story which focuses on the safety issues associated with hands-free driving, but also reads about the competing frame of viewing these technological advances in a more positive light.
In terms of recent coverage of the Supreme Court’s examination of arguments on gay marriage, Fox News ran a headline “Gay Marriage: Will we erase the boundaries that have guided humanity for generations?”
This is obviously a bit of expected framing from a conservative media source. This fits the group identity frame, calling on people to remember our “traditions,” as if gay marriage is going to bring down the house. It is also a thematic framing of the issue into a larger theme of humanity.
I generally like Fox News, partly because I’m conservative in many views, but mostly because I like to find reasons to disagree with their frames. I’m of the opinion that framing provides a platform for everyone to enter into deliberation and try on different views and opinions. I think Fox News is great at framing things in a way that allow us to try them on. I tend to get bored with more liberal media outlets and find that they’re less varied in their use of frames…which in my opinion, dulls the debate.
I agree. Fox’s boldness is entertaining, but it almost seems that I can either shake the anchor’s hand, or want to scream at them. The framing is not hidden, and it makes it easier to develop an opinion because it feels like the anchor’s reporting is a frame of the story, and not simply a fact.
Agreed. It’s always interesting to see the degrees of framing intensity. Just as Kinder and Nelson would argue, people are more likely to express an opinion whenever an issue is framed. It’s much easier to form an opinion on an issue when it’s framed in a much more intense degree, like the headline Ryan presented from Fox.
Oh you make an incredibly interesting point that connects us back to traditional journalism. Framing can help challenge the viewer. An educated viewer may hear or read a frame, and be able to dissect its use. It sounds like you like to participate in that mental exercise, and I think that makes you a more discerning citizen than many. But what about those people who perpetuate the “”traditional”thematic frame? Do they use these frame as a spring board for debate? Are dull debates better than none at all?
Fox is always an interesting one! I think I’m commenting about Fox every week I post…
It’s interesting that you mentioned group identity, because I think that’s something the media in the U.S. has espoused since at least the rise of the cable news era. MSNBC has their liberal crowd, Fox has the conservatives, and CNN has…well, I think liberals too.
I do think Fox is a good way for me to see programs that present people who think much differently than I do — and it is always important to consistently challenge one’s own embedded views. But, I will admit that much of their material tends to border on farce, and that’s where much of the agenda isn’t even conservative, but straight-up controversial for the sake of maintaining a strong viewership.
Ryan, I agree with you that framing the information a certain way makes us think differently and provide a platform for debate. However, I do not agree with the techniques used by FOX news and other right wing shows. In many cases, they present false or exaggerated facts and information – which is ok as long as you are an informed viewer and an form your own opinions, however, when this information becomes the opinion of people who are not well informed, this creates an issue. Take for example the issue of global warming. FOX news and other right wing news outlets, have in many occasions presented the opinions of “experts” who deny global warming or underestimate it’s effects. Some people are actually convinced that global warming is an invention of liberals to try to control citizens.
It is interesting how often we fail to understand the full picture behind a framed piece of journalism, because we instinctively “trust” the publication, or lack sufficient familiarity with the issue to question the information presented. Definitely, framing may attract readers’ attention, and provide a platform for debate. I wonder if framing is still effective in influencing our perception on an issue even if, as savvy readers, were realize that aggressive framing is taking place.
Ryan, I agree with you framing in the media does make for much better deliberation. It can take a serious issue and bring it down the trail of seriousness to allow for people to feel comfortable enough to comment on it, deliberate and express their own opinions. In the title you have shown above, it does bring out emotion in any view, whether people agree they will node their heads while reading the title and really agree, or if they disagree they will laugh at the title and think to themselves, what is wrong with these people? In this instance framing really does bring out emotions from any side.
Thats a great example, Ryan. Some headlines are so biased they sway the reader’s opinion even before he or she starts reading the article. But when the article covers such a criticial topic like gay marriage, it’s important the reader be provided with facts, rather than opinions. There is enough prejudice and racism in the world as is, reading a peice on unbiased news is a rare and refreshing sight.
This example is truly scary. Understandably, headlines aim to detail a story without substance. It is what the media hopes will attract a reader to read the article in its entirety, but it often falls short and the reader will feel that s/he has gained everything that is needed to know from the title. The title however, is an argument in it of itself, which many don’t consider. Consider this a strike against Dewey, I wonder how many political ideologies are built on headlines and not the diligence of an informed reader.
Marshall McLuhan famously stated, “the median is the message.” In our class, we’ve debated this concept in many contexts, specifically over whether the median should be the message. This is made more complicated by wondering exactly how the message is affected.
This is especially hard to comment on, because for the vast majority of issues, we are collectors of information from the framers, and are ourselves only secondary framers. This may also be true of the media, which certainly, and at times consciously frames its stories in a way that it hopes will lead consumers to perceive an event or idea a certain way.
This New York Post piece about the buildings surrounding Central Park is an example of episodic framing. Central Park is in the heart of every Manhattan resident. Tell someone living here that it almost was not, and that there were plans to urbanize the area is enough to make that person shudder. However, this story, which asks to New Yorkers to “blame” our leaders for not stopping shading high rises over the park, appeals to the big New York family. It introduces an issue that many have not thought of, but that the author expects many would care about. It “frames” the story, calling on who to blame, why they should be blamed, and why we should worry. Interestingly, it diverts attention away from blaming who New Yorkers tend to blame; the 1%. It is a “Journey Frame” as well, telling New Yorkers to be warned of an impending issue. Unfortunately, it does not offer much of an option for action, as the author seems to think that the consequence of the inactivity of our government is inevitable.
http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/save-central-park-from-the-attack-of-the-monster-buildings/
In the Op-Ed section of the Washington Post, there was an article titled, “Congressional Meddling in District Affairs,” by the Editorial Board. The article discusses congressional involvement in what should have been a “purely local affair” in Washington DC. The Post, taking a stand against Congressional involvement, frames the headline so that Congress is described as overstretching its influence.
DC has interesting circumstances since it is not part of a state. The bill that Congress meddled in was a religious freedom bill, and Congress might have chosen to get involved given the Republican majority.
Dianna talked quite a bit about Baltimore, but being from Maryland, I wanted to just add some additional framing thoughts.
What I found most interesting about the discussion and the coverage was the use of images. I think that many outlets, especially television news sources or those that rely on social media to increase their viewership, used framing most purposefully with images. Some sources pictured/ covered the pastors who formed blockades, peaceful protesters, the wake, etc, while others pictured violence and fires. No one really quite knew what was going on and no one certainly had the whole picture with the stark division between what was reported.
Both approaches represent opposing sides to a theme (thematic framing). Both sides took the events in Baltimore and brought them into a larger context, connecting them to Ferguson and New York and South Carolina rather than holding them as a stand alone occurrence.
One of the recent not-so-headlines in the U.S. concerns the race for Prime Minister in the U.K. Despite this lack of interest (or my lack of interest, which I’ve selfishly converted into a general lack of interest in the States), the New York Times still did a great writeup of the personalities of the two leading candidates: the Conservative incumbent David Cameron, and the Labour challenger, Ed Miliband.
The Times does a great framing of the election in the typical “horse race” fashion in an article titled, “David Cameron and Ed Miliband Enter Final Straight in British Election.” There’s even a horse race metaphor in the title! While slightly touching upon the topics of the respective candidates’ political preferences, the article frames generally within a context that makes us think about the personalities and characters of the two men. While describing the candidates, the Times is careful to not make direct statements, but still does present opinions in the guise of something like presenting Mr. Cameron as “criticized for seeming too calm, too pleasant and even lazy, a smoothness his critics ascribe to his cosseted upbringing and nearly a decade of work in public relations for a media company.” Even though the Times itself did not make the comments, it chose to introduce this statement. Mr. Miliband gets a slightly different treatment: “Mr. Miliband has shown resilience in the face of mockery from Britain’s largely right-wing press…” Again, the Times itself says little, but reveals its position through subtle choice and a careful maneuvering of words. Of course, the New York Times piece also writes about the means of the men, that is, what they are planning to do. There isn’t a defined end (except for electoral victory), but the means are definitely clear — one man is on the left of the political spectrum and the other on the right.
The Daily Mirror newspaper of the U.K., which frames itself as “the intelligent tabloid” takes a different approach to the election. The Labour-leaning newspaper, in its article titled “Chicken Prime Minister David Cameron ducking out of first-time voters rally,” leaves no doubts as to which candidate it prefers. In one of the assigned readings, Callaghan and Schnell mentioned the media’s role in using subtlety in framing to influence the general public. The Daily Mirror is not subtle. The newspaper presents Mr. Cameron as “flapping Mr Cameron [who] will instead campaign outside London, speaking to Tory Party loyalists – and deliver another snub to democracy [by not attending a rally for young voters].” This is clearly a frame that touches on a special interest category — the special interest being the Labour party…
I have to admit that I am a big fan of the New York Times and don’t really read their articles with a critical eye, but this assignment had me thinking so I’ve been reading the articles differently this week. I found an interesting article analyzing a poll conducted by the NYT and CBS about Hillary Clinton’s image. At first sight, you may think that results of a poll are pretty straightforward and can’t really be framed to favor a particular opinion. However, this article (being that it is in the NYT), presents the results of the poll in a very positive way that clearly benefits Hillary Clinton. All the results are framed to highlight positive responses like “48 percent of Americans say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy” or “only 10 percent said foreign donations to the foundation affected Mrs. Clinton’s decision”
In addition, the article only highlights negative aspects about republican contenders, with phrases like “The Republican primary is largely unformed, with many Republicans indicating openness to a variety of candidates in a large and still growing field.” The article fails to mention the fact that the Democratic Party is still struggling to find candidates to challenge Hillary’s candidacy. This article clearly makes me think that the questions of the survey had to be framed a certain way to begin with.
Here’s the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-gains-favor-times-cbs-poll-says.html?ref=us&_r=0
Thats a great article Maria. Makes me wonder how much of the polls is actually based on scientific research. I like to think the Times offers a fairly subjective perspective, especially when it comes to elections. I’ll have to keep my eyes open in 2016.
A recent article published on the American Spectator website brings attention to Peter Schweizer’s new book called “Clinton Cash.” Both Mr. Schweizer and the article’s author try to contaminate the reputation of Hillary Clinton in her bid for the Presidency.
The article states: “Long presented by allies as brilliant, a super-smart woman with dazzling ability, what Smalley and Schweizer have recorded is a secretive woman, distant, a greedy, power-hungry Empress-in-her-own-mind who has no hesitation in using her official position to enrich herself while complaining that she was “dead broke…. ” and “….the image of Hillary — and Bill — Clinton simply doesn’t match reality. That in fact the Clinton wealth was not obtained as most believed — with book deals and speaking engagements — but rather in a fashion that raises “questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office.”
This is a fairly clear example of framing in the media since the authors assert that the Clintons earned their money (much of which goes to the Clinton Foundation, a global NGO) not through public and private speaking engagements and book sales, but from influential foreign patrons who donated to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for a secret political “debt” from the Clintons. For instance, they yell about Hilary’s supposed connections with a prominent Ukrainian businessman who made a major contribution to the Clinton Foundation when Hilary was Secretary of State, suggesting that this may have influenced U.S. foreign policy in favor of Ukraine or that businessman.
Through such framing, the author aims to discredit Hilary Clinton as a Presidential candidate.
Here is the link to the American Spectator article: http://spectator.org/articles/62490/hillary%E2%80%99s-iran-scandal-empress-has-no-clothes
Emma,
I agree with your post about the “thugs” comment, What they perhaps should have done is frame rioters as thugs, which I feel they are since they are rioting, even if they started as peaceful. And frame protestors as peaceful since they are not rioting. The lack of clear line between the two causes these problems.
craig singer,
“framing the issue to show how these actions are less harmful to individual’s lives than the police brutality can certainly begin a unique dialogue about the subject.” I see what you are trying to say in your post, but not sure if burning other peoples property, especially your neighbors, can ever be framed as an important form of expression, or rather should be framed.
“Lights out? NYC reportedly under fed pressure to take down Times Square billboards ”
This article was published in the May 6,2015 issue of fox news. It is an example of issue specific frames. This specific headline is pointing its attention to the (the FEDS), the federal transportation bureau as being the bad guys by putting pressure on NYC to take down Times Square Billboards, as they violate the highway beautification act. This is a major issue for NYC as times square is not only the tourist capital of NYC it generates millions of dollars of revenue for NYC, as that is prime advertising space. This frame draws attention to NYC and draws in the audience by listing the feds in the title, playing on peoples already built perceptions of how generally people do not like the feds. It also states that that it would be lights out for NYC and that billboards should be taken down, which is untrue, the article then states only some of the billboards would need to be taken down to oblique the highway beautification act, not all of them. The title dramatizes the issue to grab the readers attention.
“Hillary’s running for president because everyday Americans need a champion—and she wants to be that champion.” This can be found on Hillary Clinton’s campaign page, as can “New Adventures. Next Chapters.” I see the aforementioned as examples of generic framing, specifically in the “tradition vs. change” framing alternative presented in Professor Hoffman’s “Food for Thought about framing.”
Additionally, an article from the Guardian which speaks about NYC’s Styrofoam ban exemplifies issue-specific framing. One can gather from the title itself – “New York Styrofoam ban leaves city’s food carts at loose ends” – that the way in which the issue is presented is priming readers to focus more on the economic effects of the Styrofoam ban than on the environmental effects.
Isabella, it is interesting that you mention that Hillary’s image can be framed as “tradition vs. change”. Clearly, her campaign strategy is focused on moving forward and change, specially moving away from the idea that she represents “old traditions”. It will be interesting to see in the coming months how her past experiences and the legacy of her husband play a role in the way her campaign is developed, and how effective they are at framing her past actions (sometimes controversial) into more positive ideas for change.
I read this article on Salon: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/03/diet_fads_are_destroying_us_paleo_gluten_free_and_the_lies_we_tell_ourselves_partner/,
which was an interview with an author who was trying to debunk the diet fads that many people follow. What was surprising to me was how the author made statements like how raw whole foods really aren’t more nutritious than an organic frozen dinner. He is framing the debate over food and fad diets in particular, through moral, religious, and scientific discourse. Just from knowing individuals who have celiac disease and are gluten-sensitive, the author’s opinion that these diets do not have scientific validity or basis is questionable. Then again, is the public buying these gluten-free foods or trying the Paleo diet because of savvy marketing? This article reminded me of the effects of framing in the article by Wise and Brewer, in which the study tested a hypothesis comparing two frames for the trans-fat ban, one framing the issue as a public health pro-ban, and the other framing the issue as anti-ban business frame. The findings for that study showed that the pro-ban public health frame had more substantial effects on public opinion. In the same regard, the media, whether it is the health section of a major newspaper, the evening news, or a health or celebrity magazines, continues to influence public opinion in what to think and how to think about the foods they consume. And media has a powerful effect in shaping what the public deems as “healthy” foods and helps start diet fads and trends. Likewise, the media is helping to shape the debate over other food issues, such as the growing debate over genetically modified foods.
The way the murders of African-American men by police officers has been handled by the media is perplexing. On one hand, you have a full blown media circus that focuses more on the negative aftermath of the deaths of black men than the actual events. On the other hand, millions of people are so angered by the negativity that they are organizing themselves and protesting peacefully.
It’s important to distinguish whether the content of the article is negative because it is biased or because the facts are so terrifying. Comments that focus only on the “thugs” in Baltimore are particularly upsetting because the peaceful protests and direct actions being taken promote equality are being overshadowed by looting, fires and violence. Which makes me wonder: how do you put a postive spin on events that are completely negative? How can an article promote action and change without being one-sided? Can this even be done?
The point is, people are paying more attention to what is happening in Baltimore because of the media portrayal. Hopefully, some good can come out of all this.
An interesting article I read may 5th,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102647245
actually framed the drop in stock prices like this………”I actually think it could be a positive for U.S. stocks, because the more people are fleeing equities, the less likely we are to have a crash instantaneously,” Boris Schlossberg of BK Asset Management said Monday on CNBC’s “Trading Nation
That to me is framed in such a way that it is similar to saying, well the dam has a big hole in it, but at least it isn’t bursting open all at once right now, so we’re good. The article is an example of traders and analysts completely finding a way to frame something bad with a comparison to a worst case scenario.
Islamist is a term that was not in the vocabulary of the world media prior to 9-11. It seems that this word was coined and used repeatedly until the media had absorbed it into its psyche as the ‘go-to’ word when describing any kind of militant related activity that was done by a Muslim – ( Or as Karen Callaghan & Frauke Schnell would have it, ‘Framing the media’). This word was even used when wars and conflicts were being fought in the name of justice, freedom and equality but where, the players happened to be Muslims.
The Media outlets are, it goes without saying, part and parcel of the framing process. Depending on party inclination and corporate biases, framing is carried out in a methodical and well worked manner. Climate change is another good example in this case. Looking at certain media coverage (Fpx news), we often find that the exact same sentences (without any rewording or para-phrasing) being repeated, over and over again.
Framing is usually done in a way that highlights statements given by people in leadership positions that may carry some weight in their professional circles. In the climate change example, we may find that certain scientists are the focal point of attack against climatologists propagating the dangers of climate change. Similarly, prominent lecturers, statesman or figureheads may be the ones doing the framing when it comes to matters of geopolitics, national security etc. These framing practices however, often divert attention from assertions challenging their claims. Instead of having a rational and open debate about the merits of both sides, opposing parties are often ridiculed, discredited and attacked.
Climate change, geo political conflicts, religion and others are all areas that have been a target of these framing practices and with our media being increasingly corporatized, It seems that these traits are only going to get worse.