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?
79 thoughts on “Framing in the Media”
Comments are closed.
Hi,
I would like to look at the reporting after Bruce Jenner’s interview and “big reveal”. Huffingtonpost.com offers a column written by a “trans person” that was asked to be an advisor of the program before it aired to ensure that ABC portrayed Bruce’s story in a genuine, honest, human way. The reporter was pleased with the interview and production. She expresses satisfaction that people are talking about transgender, she commented on viewers, tweets, and Facebook posts. She also feels the interview told Bruce’s complete story from not blaming his mother, working hard as an Olympic athlete, being a loving husband and father. The reporter felt it was a “display or truth and authenticity”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephanie-battaglino/in-the-afterglow-of-the-b_b_7159392.html
Then I then went over to fox news website and clicked on a story about Jenner. That led me to The Daily Caller where the headline read: “HuffPost is in deep, weird denial about Bruce Jenner.” The comments on this page say things like, “Dianne Sawyer lost it”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/24/bruce-jenner-im-a-republican-and-a-christian/
Framing is how a story is told. I understood it so well with the picture of Bill Clinton smiling. Next picture was not cropped so we can see Monica Lewinsky standing beside him. The story of Bruce Jenner can be reported with compassion and understanding or conversely as if he is a freak.
Mary,
I found this information helpful in understanding framing. Framing is a method of communication that leads others to accept one meaning over another. It is the process by which a communication source defines and an issue or controversy. Issues are often complicated, and require the processing of
information from a variety of perspectives, frames provide a shorthand understanding of a situation, by focusing only on those features deemed important by the particular individual involved.
Mary,
Last Friday I watched the Bruce Jenner interview with Dianne Sawyer and found it to be done with compassion and understanding like you mentioned. When I was at work the next day many coworkers were looking at articles online about the interview since they didn’t have a chance to watch it. There were many different websites that had many different opinions as we discussed it that morning. There were some websites that were compassionate and genuine and others that called Jenner a “freak”. Great example!
This is a perfect example of framing! Based on the media sources own standpoints, Bruce Jenner has been either vilified or turned into a hero, with seemingly almost no middle ground anywhere (if such a middle ground even exist…). Even nonpolitical issues such that of Bruce Jenner can be framed in different ways, showing how prevalent it is in the media.
Hi Mary, this is an awesome example of how framing is vital in media reporting. It shows how it can form an audience’s opinion by influencing their mind set by presenting opinions to the public before they form their own. The Bruce Jenner story has been one of the biggest examples currently on how the types of framing all play a part in the reports that have been published since his interview. The reports that have been produced have been more opinion based versus authentic factual reporting in the fact that he has been labeled to be a “freak”, which we must wonder by whose judgement can that conclusion be made based upon his decision.
Mary,
Great example of framing! I watched the interview and thought it was done in good taste. The interview made Bruce out to be human like the rest of us. Of course, as you point out, the story gets framed in other ways, with the dailycaller story focusing more on Diane Sawyer and the fact that Bruce is a christian and Republican.
Hi Mary,
As I was watching the Bruce Jenner “reveal”, I was first and foremost deeply saddened, because I already knew that the media was going to find some way to spin his story into a mockery. The Interview was done with compassion and painted Bruce as an honest, courageous, yet tortured soul. However, often times when individuals are faced with something that they can not relate to and can not fully understand they deal with these notions the only way they know how, by poking fun and making a mockery of it. Additionally, the media is ultimately at times solely concerned on what spin/ viewpoint of a story will sell. However, even though there will be great push-back, I feel that Bruce’s story was very touching and will have a positive impact on the transgendered community regardless of how the media decides to portray his story.
Mary,
Very timely post with Bruce Jenner. I read the People Magazine article this weekend and explained his personal struggle and how his family reacted.Where other news sources framed the situation as him being a nut job. It really all comes back to how your frame the story.
Hi Mary, I love that you picked a topic so relevant in the sphere of public debate. Media has widely covered Bruce Jenner’s story. The issue seems to have polarized the nation through predictable party/ideological lines. Understanding media it is almost predictable how Fox news would report on the Bruce Jenner issue.
Hi Mary, I like how you referred to the frames used when discussing how the media manipulates stories about celebrities in various ways. Often, the entire lives of celebrities are dependent upon the way in which the media portrays them. If the media depicts them in a positive light, they are secure for the time being. However, if 10 years later the media decides that it would make more of a “story” to bring out some dark secrets about that celebrity, his or her entire career could be over.
Mary,
Perfect example of framing in the media! The majority of media I’ve personally seen took the angle of being supportive and viewing him as courageous and I believe that’s the angle that is overall winning out. But as with any big story, there are always different views that inform the angle/frame the media takes. Particularly topics that people feel incredibly strongly about on each side of the fence.
Is the following an example of framing or poor investigative journalism just to get the story out? During the ebola situation, Ms. Pham was portrayed as a nurse that breached safety protocols provided by the hospital and it was therefore her fault she contracted ebola. After the event, it was discovered that the hospital did not have a protocol and there was no formal training for the nurses that were caring for these patient. In an interview with The Dallas Morning News earlier this year, Pham described a chaotic scene inside Presbyterian as she and her fellow nurses scrambled to care for the patient. She said no one would pick up waste or fix a toilet the staff used. She said nurses made all the decisions about how to protect themselves and the only guidance she received was when a supervisor gave her a printout of guidelines she found on the Internet. “I wanted to believe that they would have my back and take care of me, but they just haven’t risen to the occasion,” Pham said. One way or another, the story was out. Pham was a bad nurse not following hospital protocol. To me this framing; having the audience focus their attention in a certain direction. Pham finally came out and set the record straight. Unfortunately, some of the public still believe it was her fault. The story had been told, damage done.
Maria, this is a great example. The true always comes out, but in this case it was a little too late the damage was already done. The media definitely wanted to focus viewers attention in a certain direction with this story. As a nurse I was shocked when the story first broke. It is very sad that her reputation was tarnished, not to mention contacting Ebola and have to deal with the outcomes.
Hi Maria, I enjoyed your post and the example you shared of the ebola situation in Texas. I agree that the media chose to tell the story the hospital – a large corporation – told without investigation. You asked, is it poor investigative journalism or framing. I think both. What resulted was a travesty. It would be awful enough to have to go through having ebola and the treatment involved but in addition to to be faced with having to prove that you are a good nurse without support or training from the hospital is even worse.
Hey Mary:
I too watched this interview and I must say that the way that it was framed on TV for the interview did give you the whole story of the person who was going though it. I did see the article that you posted from Fox news, and how some of the things that were said were portrayed differently to meet another view points agenda.
Good post Maria! I think its a little bit of both. I think it’s framing by the hospital for sure. They were trying to draw attention to the Ms. Pham to protect themselves. They knew they were serious trouble and needed a scape goat. Also, the reporting of Ms Pham’s ebola incident was a little off. They should of spotted the framing straight away. This would of resulted in more accurate reporting and avoided the unnecessary smearing of nurse Pham’s reputation.
Greg,
Good point. This example is how dangerous framing can be when power comes into play. The hospital had the power and resources to reach the media. The media, not having any other resource to go by or not taking responsiblity to dig deeper into the situation, took the reasonings of the hosptial and ran with it. Framing in this instance tarnished someone’s reputation of their career.
Hi – This is a really interesting thread – I remember being glued to the TV during the ebola “scare”. But what caught my eye in this post was the idea of “accurate reporting” – and Professor Hoffman also referenced this idea when he talked about presenting information without framing it.
I am not sure that there is any such thing as accurate or objective or with out framing. Even that statement is a frame. On both a linguistic and personal level, I’m not sure that it is possible to be without a frame of some sort (that itself is a frame…)
Maria,
This is a great point! I question the journalistic integrity of some news sources. Every source has it’s biases and agenda. However, as a news organization, the priority should be getting the correct facts to the pubic. Once those are clearly established, then the news can be framed to fit the organizations goal. The key is the facts.
Hi Maria, great example! I think that the media wanted to frame the story in a way that scared the public about ebola. Therefore, they had everyone think that even with hospital protocols for ebola, nurses could get sick. In reality, there were no hospital protocols at all; this, however, would put the blame on hospitals rather than ebola itself, and therefore was not publicized by the media.
Right on, Maria!
Nurses were portrayed as breaking protocol, and “messing up”. It’s easy for media to blame the nurse, because they are the ones that are most hands on.
Media didn’t show the scope of everything nurses deal with, and how heavily unprepared the hospital was. I always think, a nurse can’t be a nurse without proper equipment, supplies, and training. I’m glad nurses were able to stick together and rally- showing public/media that you can’t blame the nurse.
When thinking about a perfect example of how an issue or an individual is portrayed in the media, an individual who has been seen in many outlets is Hilary Clinton. As far back to the beginning when Bill Clinton was sworn into office as our President, Hilary as served many roles. Hilary was never portrayed in the media as a traditional First Lady. Hilary took an office in the West Wing and was appointed head of the Healthcare Task Force. Hilary testified before Congress multiple times and offered solutions for change. Hilary was given permission to attend staff and cabinet meetings. While still serving as First Lady of the United States, Hillary Clinton ran for the open Senate seat in New York. She won the election and became the first First Lady to be elected to public office. In 2007, Hillary Clinton announced her intention to run for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President of the United States. When Senator Barack Obama won the coveted election, Hillary Clinton was appointed as Obama’s Secretary of State in 2009. And again a few weeks ago Hilary Clinton announced her 2016 bid for Presidency.
Media coverage influences the way the public feels about individuals. In regards to politics the media can help shape the publics opinion of candidates. Can we really ever know the true candidate behind their so-called image the media portrays?
When the Monica Lewinski scandal broke Hillary Clinton was portrayed as a woman scorned and a disempowered victim. She suffered harsh criticism from the press, including accusations that refusing to divorce Bill was somehow a betrayal of feminism, would she ever be likable enough for voters to vote in her favor. When Hillary ran for office the news published a segment on how the Democratic Party should encourage Hillary to bow out of the presidential primary. The language used by the media throughout the race was that Clinton needed to be warned about overstepping her boundaries. Clinton didn’t back out of the campaign and a few months later the tone of the media coverage shifted. Clinton became more likable and experienced. In the first network newscasts since Hillary Clinton officially announced her 2016 presidential campaign, ABC and NBC news cheered her announcement and was flattered by her campaign video. Her campaign video was also well received on Twitter. Hillary’s image has been reframed to portray a trustworthy and strong world leader.
Hi Katie,
I loved your post and also agree with you on how the media has framed Hillary over the years; however, the battle still continues. Although Hillary has been reframed to portray a humanized, trustworthy, and strong leader in her campaign launch, she is still facing much mockery and push back. Even though some outlets shed light on her humility and humbleness in her “scooby” van launch, other outlets poked fun and made a mockery of the entire thing. I believe that she still has a long battle ahead of her.
I think at the very beginning of the McCain/Palin campaign, there was a different frame used for Palin – she was presented as a smart, savvy, dc-outsider who would draw in the soccer moms. It turned out that Palin could not live up to (or inside of) that frame.
Hey Kaitie, I agree, Hilary Clinton has certainly been in the spotlight of the American political system since the early 1990’s. I agree that the perception of Hilary since her First Lady days to today has shifted drastically, and that she is undeniably a powerful political figure. Despite the positive image of Mrs. Clinton in the media, it is important to note that it is only positive in the eyes of liberal media and democratic supporters. The conservative media continues to criticize her on everything from e-mailgate, to political competence to, lets not forget Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi…
Political framing may shift over time but rarely along bipartisan lines….
Katie –
Really great points! I especially love your point: “Media coverage influences the way the public feels about individuals. In regards to politics the media can help shape the public’s opinion of candidates. Can we really ever know the true candidate behind their so-called image the media portrays?”
It’s so true that the media (paid for and non-paid for) can easily sway the public on issues and a candidate. This is a good reminder to always take everything you read with a grain of salt because almost nothing is a balanced view these days. You hope that when it’s something as important as a political candidate that people will fully inform themselves by reading article from both sides of the fence. Unfortunately, I don’t think the average person does this and there are many who take whatever news source is in front of them at face value.
Hi Katie,
I feel that women in politics still have somewhat of an uphill battle when dealing with the media. Stereotypes are less today but they still combine with media to create barriers for female political candidates. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin faced different stereotypes, but both campaigns exhibited the prejudices in media.
Palin was the Governor of Alaska, a woman few people knew about, but the media made her popular. The media was not researching her role as governor, defeats of big oil companies, or her view on important, controversial issues. Instead they focused on her unconventional family and her intelligence or according to some, her lack of intelligence.
Maria
Hi Katie, Reading your post reminded my of so many news stories over the years about Hillary and the Clinton’s. I recently heard a story that Hollywood loves Hillary. Apparently there are plans by CNN to have a special about her, plans by NBC to have a 4hour mini series about her, and plans for a movie “Rodham” the early years. Over the last 4 years she has worked on re-branding herself as a states woman and one that can work and support Obama’s Presidency. I have heard reports that if she is elected she will be 69 years old. I do continue to hear some reports of her choice of clothes, and years later stories continue to emerge about Monica Lewinsky and was Hillary right to “stand by her man”. Will the media ever let her live those down? Probably not, that is framing and her opponents want negative reporting.
One of the most recent examples of media framing is the passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It seemed as though the second President Obama began to talk about healthcare reform, framing had already begun by the media.
In perhaps the most popular form of framing in recent memory which has now entered the vernacular and is used as a substitution for the name of the law – “Obamacare” was born. Conservative news sources spun the name of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (an unequivocally positive name) and turned it into “Obamacare,” channeling negative frustrations towards Obama himself to his healthcare legislation.
Initially, the phrase Obamacare was difficult to deal with for liberal media and the Obama administration. However, President Obama himself spun the phrase and the liberal media ran with it. I distinctly remember him saying something along the lines of “You guys are right. I like the phrase Obamacare. Obama. Cares. Obamacare!”
With that sudden change in framing from negative to positive, the tone of conservative news stations when using the word Obamacare changed. Instead of using it as a negative, they were now forced to use the very word they created to describe the legislation, or be easily accused of backtracking.
Of course, another obvious framing of Obamacare was the description of the bill itself. While many of the provisions could be considered negative, the terms used to describe them were fear inducing and somewhat embarrassing to utter. “Death panels!” “Government takeover of healthcare!” “Nazi Communist Fascist Healthcare!” (maybe the last one is an exaggeration)
Hi Carmelo, I truly agree with your post in how media outlets have framed the Affordable Care act. Various news outlets ran with the slogan “Obamacare” which did show the healthcare reform to be suggested as a facist movement, but the true purpose of the reform turned around to be used within a positive forum to push this agenda, as President Obama re-framed it to help the legislation be seen as a benefit. As Professor Hoffman showed within the video lecture, Reagan regained support by re-framing his opponents negative factor of age for his candidacy, and used it for his political gain to show his credibility in experience against his opponent.
Obamacare has certainly been through the ringer and come out the other side, a bit beaten around the edges, but overall on the positive side. More of the news you hear today are stories of the newly insured, whose numbers are growing every year.
Obamacare has several facets that have evoked a variety of emotions, many which were further fueled by the media. As you mentioned, “death panels” certainly place Obamacare into a negative light as well as arguments of socialized medicine. However, most of what people were arguing against was proven false and many people were unaware of how the Affordable Care Act actually works.
Some states went so far as to rename Obamacare, such as Kentucky with Kynect, in order to reframe people’s thinking towards health insurance. Studies in Kentucky found that when people heard Obamacare they had a negative response, yet when they hear Kynect their response was positive. Obamacare and Kynect are the same thing – a clear example of the impact of framing. The word Obamacare still evokes both positive and negative emotions depending on which side of the argument you are on. Those who are in need of insurance see it in a positive light, while those who do not feel it to be a drain on their tax dollars. It’s ironic that we are always saying “at least I’ve got my health” yet, when legislation is enacted to help people remain healthy, people revolt and are up in arms.
Hi Michelle,
Obamacare or the affordable health care act has been a hot topic to distort. Even the word affordable creates feelings in people. I had never heard of the kynect before. I wonder what network in Kentucky created that word.
Grace,
This is a great post, and I’m glad someone posted about this. A lot of the mainstream news sources have been heavily condemning the riots without any discussion as to why the riots are occurring. Much of the debate is one sided, with many Americans unfortunately seeing only side.
It would be interesting to see if the overall feeling of the country would be different if there was more of both sides on mainstream media, rather than just on internet media.
Amongst the protests and rioting that has taken place within Baltimore, Maryland as result of the injustice that happened to deceased, Freddie Gray, the media outlets have been framing the citizens of this city to all be thugs and savages due to the damage that has been done. As there are truths to alot of the over-exaggerated reports to these claims within media outlet framing, there are alot of positive protests that are occurring more than the rioting that have taken place within the city of Baltimore, which news coverage seems to not display more frequently than the negative results of rioting.
One story that is taking over the news coverage outlets that actually shows how one citizen was trying to save her child from potentially being hurt or arrested while he took part in aggressively protesting and rioting against the police in Baltimore. The video shows Toya Graham, physically disciplining her son as she caught him throwing objects at police during the protests, and removed him immediately from the scene.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/29/baltimore-mother-praised-by-police-for-dragging-son-out-of-riots
As she is being praised throughout the country all over social media and various news outlets for her efforts as being an active and assertive parent trying to save her son from possible long term consequences that could have cost him is life, other media forums have labeled her to be the stereotypical angry black woman throughout news reports and stories. As the following links show how media’s framing can pose opinions and spin the authenticity of a story to perpetuate racial stereotypes within America.
http://abc7.com/news/video-angry-baltimore-mom-beats-son-suspected-of-rioting/684791/
Hi Tiffany,
The Baltimore mother is an exellenct example of a current event on media framing. The two frames set by the media are the two exact arguments/deliberations/conversations that are occuring now. Most people will gravitate toward the frame that suits their opinions. Sadly, the media has made framing the center of their rating strategy to appeal toward their target audience. Just projecting the frame of the story is essentially misleading their target audience and is poor quality journalism.
Tiffany,
This a very good example.
In this scenario, there is a lot of room for interpretation and networks will undoubtedly exploit every possible angle. As Susan mentioned, networks will gear their coverage to their viewers. Another cause is competition. There is a always pressure to show something different and unique. If every network said the same thing they wouldn’t attract the same kind of traffic.
I’m not sure if ABC and other networks’ ultimate goal was to perpetuate racial stereotypes but the need for page views certainly led them down that path.
Unemployment can be a touchy subject for many people. We live in a society where you are defined by your job, so when you don’t have one, you are often looked down upon as if something is wrong with you. We are constantly “…hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is ‘down’ to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market” (Clifton, 2015). However, this is a misleading ideal since those who are still unemployed are not feeling the effects of an increased labor market. Additionally, another group not counted in the unemployment figures are the underemployed – those that may have a degree in science yet are working part time in an unrelated field, such as retail. They are now considered employed, even if it is not a living wage and may only be working part time.
The reporting of the employment rate is a prime example of framing in the media, who either want to tell a positive story (“Unemployment has gone down!”), or a negative one (“What about all those people who have run out of benefits?!”), depending on their audience. The numbers that are often presented do not tell the complete story. When discussing an overall improvement in the unemployment rate, there are several people being left out of the picture. These numbers are not including those who, as previously mentioned, are underemployed, working part time, nor those whose benefits have run out, or who have just stopped looking for work. These workers are sometimes referred to as “’missing workers’—potential workers who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job… [and therefore] are not reflected in the unemployment rate” (Economic Policy Institute, 2015). Additionally, according to The Economic Policy Institute (2015), if these workers were included in the current unemployment figures the rate would go up to 7.4%.
Being unemployed is more than just not having a job, it is the inability to obtain a job. When the recession first hit, there was a lot of talk about how the unemployment rates were getting as bad as the Great Depression. However, now, although the economy is recovering, there are still lingering effects that affect unemployment rates. The longer you are unemployed, the more difficult it becomes to find a job, since you appear unemployable. This has led to feelings of depression and people who just stop trying. The true unemployment rate is found under what is called a U-6 rate. “[T]he U-6 rate is a more accurate reflection of national employment. Like the ‘official’ rate, the U-6 essentially doubled between 2007 and 2009; unlike the official rate, it’s not coming down as fast. But most news organizations don’t cover the U-6 rate, and many economists don’t focus on it” (Diamond, 2013). The numbers that are most often portrayed in the media only focus on the absolute of you have a job or you do not have a job. It does not consider all those who are in between; freelancers, underemployed, part time workers. The media is working to frame the national unemployment rate in the best light possible. Those who are actually part of the millions without work know that it is far tougher than is being reported.
Reframing has resulted in a glass half-full/half-empty view of unemployment. If you look at government statistics the economy is growing and anyone who wants a job will be able to find one. When you dig a bit deeper, however, and look at the numbers behind the numbers, you can see that all is not as rosy as it seems. For the millions who are underemployed or working part time, and can barely cover their bills, or have just thrown in the towel, no amount of reframing will change their reality.
References
Clifton, J. (2015, Feb. 3). The big lie: 5.6% unemployment. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx
Diamond, D. (2013, Jul 5). Why the ‘real’ unemployment rate is higher than you think. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2013/07/05/why-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-higher-than-you-think/
Economic Policy Institute. (2015, Apr. 3) Missing workers: The missing part of the unemployment story. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/
Sadly, framing stories in a negative light is typically going to be the headline since we tend to not pay attention to more positive news. When the protests were peaceful there was far less coverage then when the violence and rioting started. There is certainly more to this event, and hopefully we will be able to uncover the whole truth and truly learn from it-rather than waiting for the next city to explode.
This is a prime example of a current event that is being constantly turned around by the media. We are definitely getting a more one- sided argument and seeing only the bad. There is very little discussion on why these riots have occurred, and why things have escalated to the level they have. Although there have been a few stories on the clean-up, most of the positive spinning stories have been peaceful protests in other cities. The media is still tending to frame the situation in Baltimore negatively. It’s just sad that it takes an event such as this to bring serious issues to the forefront.
ESPN recently aired a special featuring Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Stephen A. Smith. A hot topic surrounding Mayweather is his history of domestic violence but there was no mention of it during the 30 minute segment. Instead what we got was a fluff piece, promoting Mayweather’s car collection and lifestyle. It’s the price you pay for an exclusive and considering Stephen A. Smith was involved, you wouldn’t expect anything else.
This segment was promoted heavily and aired multiple times in key timeslots. Contrarily, an Outside the Lines report that did focus on his history of domestic violence was not heavily promoted and was shunned to a less prominent timeslot and to limited airings. The decision to feature the fluff piece over the OTL one is their way of making a certain athlete look great, presumably as a condition to the interview, in the public eye.
This happens a lot in sports. The problem is there are too many sports reporters and the dependence of athlete/team cooperation is so high that many reporters/news outlets become PR shills of various players and teams.
Hi, Michael,
I like your post. I think the phenomenon that you mentioned is almost happening everywhere throughout history. Due to various reasons, the media coverage on sports or movie stars tend to shun the negative depiction and focus on their positive sides. They try to make those people role models, but in reality, we are all human beings, no one is perfect. Do we want to know the truth of our idols even though we’ll get disappointed, or we would rather be fooled and live in fantasy? The social media is so powerful with regards to framing the public’s opinions on certain celebrity and events. The more power people have, the more responsibilities they should hold. It’s important for media practitioners to sustain the professional standard instead of becoming “PR shills” of interest groups.
HI Mike,
Your example brings forward how the media is able to omit things and therefore frame our perception of public figures. I’m sure there are many reasons why the ESPN networks might want to depict the sports players in a favorable light.
Michael, i think the Mayweather segment is a great example of how the media spins the way they share information with the public. In this case they decided to omit information and bring attention to other issues. I think this happens too often where PR uses the media to work to their advantage. Hopefully other media outlets wont be as influenced and provide all the facts to allow for a more well informed public.
Hi Michael,
Good post on a very interesting topic. I’ve seen recently that Floyd Mayweather even banned some female journalists from covering the fight because his camp was afraid that they would bring up his history of domestic violence. Sometimes a company, like ESPN, can be at fault. Other times I think it the subjects themselves who for one reason or another have an outsized influence on what gets said about them.
Framing theory deals with the concept that the Media has a heavy influence on how audiences will view, understand, and then evaluate a story. It involves the use of story telling, word choice, metaphors, spin, and other narrative techniques in order to deliver a particular viewpoint to audiences in regards to a specific story.
One current and significant example of framing is the current media coverage on Hillary Clintons run for presidential campaign. Although some media outlets such as the Huffington Post have painted the start of her campaign launch positively, other news outlets have made a mockery out of her efforts to show humility by setting out on a 1000 mile journey by a van, nicknamed “Scooby”, to the site of her first official campaign event in Iowa, in order to emphasize her humility and humbleness to the people. This is only one small instance in which media framing is going to effect her campaign for candidacy. Hillary is definitely going to face a huge challenge in battling media outlets from painting her campaign efforts in a negative light, as politicians always do.
Framing has such a great effect on politilcal campaigns in our generation that media can literally make or break you. For the most part, most Americans get their media from the same source and the way stories are framed in that political media greatly affects how that group perceives a candidate.
I agreed that framing works wonders against and for political campaigns. The opposite party frame particular works or images for the public to see and and negatively frame the other party.
With the breaking news of the six Baltimore police officers being charged, I looked at three media outlets: MSNBC, Fox News and CNN, to explore how they framed the event. I viewed each news outlet’s website and viewed each video that covered the breaking news.
Both MSNBC and CNN had this event as their headline news story, with bold lettering whereas Fox News did not. Fox News had this story displayed with other national news, with a news title hyperlink for the story. MSNBC had a picture of Baltimore’s State Attorney as the hyperlink. CNN had the pictures of the six officers charged as a hyperlink.
MSNBC had a video clip of Baltimore’s State Attorney General’s press statement along with a lead protester commenting afterwards with Rev. Al Sharpton prompting questions. There were also clips of protesters cheering and the lead protester interviewed shared his satisfaction with the charges.
Even though the event was about the six officers charged, Fox News showed video of the first night Baltimore issued a curfew. The video footage was of Geraldo Rivera running and commenting on the protesters (two) defying the curfew with police officers enforcing it. Rivera also made a repeated point for the cameraman show the amount of police presence that was in the area. Nothing in the video was about the officers charged.
CNN had a breakdown of each officer charged. Each officer was pictured along with their race, age, years on the force and any prior charges both on the force and/or outside the force. There were no commenters stating opinions/expert knowledge.
When comparing the different types of framing, it appears MSNBC and Fox News is practicing episodic framing. CNN is practicing thematic and general framing.
Marriage equality has been framed in many ways by the media. One type of generic framing the media has used is traditional vs. change.
In the fox news article posted below, Jim Daley argues for the traditional family based on his belief in biblical teachings. He believes that “traditional marriage” is god’s blueprint for the human relationship. The Fox News framing wants you to focus on the “traditional.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/24/sex-marriage-experiment-work/
In the Huffington Post article posted below, Byron Wood argues that peoples definition of marriage is changing and that marriage equality is a huge part of the civil rights movement. This article frames the topic as it’s time for “change.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bryan-wood/gay-marriage-americas-las_b_2962502.htm
The issue of marriage equality is a great exampling of framing but I also believe it is one that is so sensitive or close to home for some people that framing might not affect it. Most people against marriage equality for all are against it based on religious or personal beliefs. In an instance when beliefs are so deeply rooted, I dont think media framing has as much of an affect.
Marriage equality is great example of an issue that is often framed in the media. I think word choice has a big influence in framing for this particular issue. I also think that this is an issue where people have the information and where the concern mainly lies with the way opinions are presented to the public. Certain media outlets try to sway the public to agree with their beliefs or opinions. For this particular issue I think many other factors like religion, environment, education have a role in how much influence the media can actually have in influencing the public.
I think this is a great example of framing by the media. Since it’s beginnings I mean when it first started becoming an “issue” marriage equality has been framed by the media any way they wanted to, every way they saw it fit that it would attract more viewers and also depending on their political affiliation. I agree that many personal factors like religion or other personal beliefs have a lot to do with how people perceive marriage equality, however I think for many of us who are in between i.e they were not raised religious or they were not raised to think or even talk about same sex marriage, how the media framed can have a lot to do on how many people feel about it.
Great post! The fight to legalize same-sex marriage has been very swift as a social movement, and public support has increased dramatically in a relatively short period of time – just 27% of Americans supported same-sex marriage in 1996, up to 54% in 2014! http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ Framing definitely has helped Americans process this issue to view it as a civil rights issue.
Hi, Grace,
It’s a great post. As you mentioned, FOX news coverage on Baltimore riots focused on the event per se, which can be categorized into episodic framing. It mainly reports the damage the protestors caused, and the implacable conflict between police and protestors. It diverted the attention from the root cause behind this chaos. Comparatively, like Think Progress could cover the stories behind the riot scenes. This kind of self-selective news coverage could frame different perceptions among the audience. If it mainly covers the violent scenes and damages, the public would have negative view on this event, and automatically categorize themselves into either side, further exacerbate the conflict. If it could cover the side stories behind the scenes, as in the examples you gave, the public might have a panoramic view and reflect on this whole event, make sound decisions to urge the government to overhaul the police system. This could transform a disaster into a historical progress.
Framing theory refers to media packaging and presentation of information to the public. The media often emphasizes certain events over others and encourages or discourages certain interpretations. Because of this the media has an influence over the way people interpret the issues being presented. The issue of climate change is frequently framed in the media. Just by reframing the term from “global warming” to “climate change” greatly changed the amount of coverage the topic received. The Huffington Post recently published an article about how many media outlets such as ABC, NBC, and Fox spend relatively less time discussing this issue when compared to the other issues they cover. By reframing the way the term was used the media was able to use it with respect to a broader range of issues.
As a former elementary school teacher, I have been watching the debate around the Common Core curriculum/school testing/teacher evaluation with interest. There are so many frames going around that sometimes I forget which side I am supposed to be on. I am for merit pay for good teachers, but against testing to determine who is a good teacher. I am for the teachers union but against teacher tenure. I think testing is ok but endless test prep is not. I don’t have a problem with the test but if I had a kid in public school I would want him to opt out of the test.
When you teach – especially in elementary school – you also put new ideas into the context of ideas/information already learned and digested. Context, scaffolding, whatever you want to call it – it is creating a frame for students. Or, at best, creating the situation for them to create their own frame.
Sometimes frames become a shortcut for real thinking. Sometimes they are a mental card catalogue for information.
The summer of 2001 was “Shark Attack” summer. The american media created such hype over shark attacks after an attacked happened to a 10 year old boy. The media spun the news to make it seem like there had been a spike in shark attacks. Something must have been happening to our sharks… Maybe something was in the water making them more vicious then ever. However statisticians proved that there was no increase in the amount of shark attacks within the United States. The american media drew our attention to shark attacks for the entire summer before 9/11. The american media created the agenda and lead us to believe that we had a major issue of shark attacks however the numbers did not prove the same.
I think politicians are great examples of people who experienced various frames by media outlets depending on which station is doing the reporting.
One example is George W. Bush. CNN and MSNBC never seized the opportunity to catch a mistake in the pronunciation of a word, a bad speech, or any other way to make him seem incompetent. Fox News, on the other hand, focused on Bush’s ability to rally the nation post 9/11, lowering taxes for all Americans, or accomplishments with education reform. We see that currently with Obama. CNN and MSNBC consistently highlight his accomplishments, while Fox jumps on the opportunity to point out all his failures. This will most definitely continue to play out in the 2016 election, as well.
The controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a mega-regional pact which was proposed in 2005. It’s the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing 12 countries which account for 40 percent of the global economy.
“Without frames in mind, citizens are likely to be bewildered and overwhelmed by the politics which is referred to “one great, blooming, buzzing confusion”. Therefore, elites play the role of educators to inform citizens, in order to cultivate meaningful public debate. In this event, proponents framed TPP would boost economic growth, support American jobs and grow U.S. exports.They used value framing that TPP would promote American value such as free trade, labor and environmental standards. Moreover, with the adoption of thematic framing, proponents framed TPP in an international context that if U.S. didn’t write the rule of global economy, fast-growing China will step in to fill the void.
No theme emerges without a counter-theme, those who seek to shape public opinion typically compete with one another to frame the issue. Opponents claimed TPP would benefit the wealthiest and multi-national corporations at the expense of American working class. They diverted the public’s attention from the benefits that Obama administration promised. Instead they used “priming” to recall public’s memory of the damage caused by previous trade agreements. For example, the adoption of Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) caused U.S. trade deficit with Korea increasing by 37 percent, on the contrary to Obama’s promise that FTA would boost U.S. export. Opponents tried to frame an impression, reminding the public that Obama administration never fulfilled their promise on trade deals.
Framing is a process of checks and balances. During this process, the definition of newsworthiness is vulnerable to be manipulated by special groups. How much information citizens can get access to affects their opinions. In this regard, social media is powerful to shape public opinions since they control the flow of information.
Grace,
Great point! We saw this with the Ferguson coverage as well.
Framing always existed but with the advent of 24-hour news channels and increase news outlets, there’s a lot more room for commentary. They also know who their audience is and many of them cater their coverage to fit what their viewers want to see.
Political media has shifted from purely reporting on stories and facts to offering a wide range of political opinions, blogs and public opinion makers. Certain opinion makers in the United States feature a celebrity like status. Brooks, Friedman, O’ Rilley and others are celebrities in their own sphere of political ideology.
Political framing is a process by which mead uses their political platform to further reinforce and promote their ideological standpoint. One of the great examples of such political manipulation has been the debate on marriage equality and gay rights.
Both liberal and conservative media report on marriage equality debate but from different perspectives.
Fox News on their web page in the opinions column featured this article: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/30/gay-marriage-debate-will-erase-boundaries-that-have-guided-humanity-for/ where the author assumes a strong Christian argument of morality and the moral imperative. The tecnique of fear is used to drive the argument home implying that is the supreme court does not protect the institution of marriage between man and a women, we will seen be dealing with polygamy and all kinds of non-christian concepts. Argument here is that religious morale is what kept us alive as a society and going against those values is going against humanity itself. This form of intimidation from the conservative corner is a common technique.
The Huffington post reported on the same story taking the opposite view :http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_6819712.html
Huffington post used quotes, and reported on statements by those hoping that the supreme court will have an effect on states decisions and hence allow marriage equality.
The article draws a parallel to previous cases of marriage bans on interracial marriage, arguing that just like we had no right to ban interracial marriage, we have no right to interfere with gay marriage.
As a strong supporter of marriage equality I may be biased, but Huffington post draws parallel to previous civil rights debates and provides a much more compelling argument than fear and god based fear.
I agreed that public needs to read other articles/stories from different newspapers in order to make sure they know the full situation what is currently going on, besides reading the popular and branded logos of media.
Nikolina –
This is a great example. I am in agreement with you from an ideological standpoint, and I often find that I have to remind myself to be looking at issues from multiple standpoints. It is so easy, especially in NYC to think that the whole country agrees with your opinion, but the real challenge is finding a way to have an intelligent argument with those on the other side.
Framing refers to arguments within politics that attempt to place different issues within certain contexts in order to further their agendas. For example, the New York Times’ coverage of Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to the Congress was framed in order to make it appear as if two allies were warring. The Times’ wrote, “In an extraordinary spectacle pitting the leaders of two close allies against each other, Mr. Netanyahu took the rostrum in the historic chamber of the House of Representatives…” The Times’ made a special effort of specifying that Netanyahu and Obama were pitted against each other. To me, this seems to be placing the story with in the frame of conflict. This frame draws attention to the disagreement between the two allies, but does not bring attention to strong political bond that Israel and America share.
Mary, it’s interesting how you bring up Bruce Jenner. I think that the framing that occurs when talking about Bruce Jenner’s story is tradition versus change framing. Some of the media, especially liberal media outlets, frame the story as talking about change in order to promote LGBT rights. Other media outlets, especially the conservative ones, report the story negatively in order to promote traditional values.
Maria, it is so interesting that the media framed the story of Ms. Pham and the Ebola case. Apparently, framing the story in a way that accused the hospital would not be conducive to the agenda of the media. Perhaps the media wanted to warn people about how their personal actions could protect them from the virus? Or perhaps the media simply wanted a story about Ebola, and twisted any story to make it more dramatic…
One recent political issue that has been framed in the media is the Eric Garner story and the opposition to police violence. In the media, the story is framed as a civil rights issue that specifically reflects upon racial bias in the police force. I believe that for the most part, the framing that occurs in relation to the Eric Garner incident is about public interest versus special interest. The police are framed as being separate from the majority of American society, and of operating on behalf of their own interests rather than on that of the general population. This framing is evident in the following excerpt from Yahoo! News: “From Ferguson to Staten Island, to Oakland and beyond, America has watched as reactions to police violence against black men has drawn concern and outrage from local communities….” The police are made to be the outgroup, while both black men and local communities are the ingroup. The frames draw attention to racial bias and violence within the police force, while diverting attention from the protection that society receives from police.
Batya –
I agree that the coverage around the Eric Garner case has been largely one-sided. While I certainly agree that there are issues that need to be addressed in the police force, I do feel like the focus right now is solely on the negative aspects of the police. If someone who was unfamiliar with American current issues was briefed on the Eric Garner case only using media coverage, they might believe that all American cops are racist and dangerous. We know that is not the case but the media is only showing one side of the story.
Since, I mostly read scientific articles, I noticed when discussing about certain topics, media tend to frame either the pros or the cons of the topic that they’re talking about but never both. In fact, in some advocacy websites, they tend to publish and display the pros of their topics, instead of the cons. So, media is not the only ones that are framing. They’re not exactly lying about their information but I feel like framing is more of concealment and public don’t often think about it the other side to story when first reading the story.
One of the first examples of framing in the media that came to mind was the coverage around Michael Bloomberg’s war against soda, which went from a public health debate to a battle about constitutional rights in a matter of months.
In May 2012, Bloomberg announced the portion cap rule, an amendment to the NYC Health code which limited the sale of sugary drinks to 16 oz, which was approved by the Board of Health in September 2012. While there was certainly hesitation to support this move, as well as outright strong opposition, in general Bloomberg was portrayed as a visionary policy maker who wasn’t afraid to take a firm stance on an important issue.
However in March 2013, the NYS Supreme Court invalidated the amendment stating that it violated the separation of powers and also stating that the Board of Health acted outside its purview. This has resulted in a stark change in public opinion of Bloomberg. This big loss has allowed the media to change the way they frame him – from an untouchable billionaire, to a politician who is stuck in a rut with an insignificant issue.
People had strongly polarized feelings about this issue, and their opinions were largely influenced by the media sources where they got their information. However, now the Federal Government is considering a soda tax of its own. News of this update has changed public opinion on Bloomberg’s crusade once again. The US departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services will develop new federal nutrition guidelines by year’s end, so we will see what the fate of soda finally is, and see how it affects Bloomberg’s image.
I thought this was a very interesting topic you chose as I truly agree with what you are saying. It is not that I have any particular high regards about Bloomberg, however, because of media framing I cannot believe sometimes how, from all those mandate he served and all those things he did right or wrong, he is mostly mentioned or better say remembered by the ridiculous ‘insignificant’ issue of soda consumption limits which rose from a health debate issue to a constitutional right issue in such little time as you mentioned
Great post! I totally agree. Fox has even gone as far as to include entirely inaccurate information in its reporting, like this: http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/05/fox-news-posts-fake-photo-of-baltimore-thats-actually-from-venezuela/ Even when proven false, these narratives contribute to the overall framing of the media narrative.
When two NYPD officers were shot my a lone operator in the midst of citywide protests against police brutality, the media diverted much of the energy of people away from protesting police repression and instead toward having to publicly mourn the slain officers. Mayor De Blasio requested that protests against police repression stop until the two officers’ funerals — however protestors refused, noting that they were unrelated. Every media outlet made any person speaking on the issue – including Eric Garner’s widow and mother – denounce violence toward the police before they could speak of anything else, thus reframing the entire story of police violence against citizens to citizen violence against police.
A specific prominent issue that has been highlighted and framed in the media is the claim that the MMR Vaccination causes autism. In 1998, an article published in a british journal suggested that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination causes autism. Because of this one study, it alarmed the public, policymakers, and news media around the world and resulted in decreased compliance with vaccination schedules of not only the MMR vaccination, but vaccinations as a whole. Media has essentially glorified the author of the study for shedding light on an issue that other leading scientists/healthcare providers/ and government should have.
Today, because of the way media framed one research study, we have seen a large resurgence of measles.
These frames draw attention to one study that contained skewed and fraudulent results, and divert attention to other studies that claim the exact opposite– mmr vaccination does not cause autism.
The way media covers vaccinations have now been reframed and rightfully so. The british journal has retracted the article that claimed MMR creates autism, and there have been more prevalent, sound research available disclaiming such fact. JAMA published a large scale research last month indicating no link between MMR and autism.
I believe it is due to media framing that has allowed for the fear of vaccinations to grow so large. There are tons of research articles available that may fear the public, but it’s irresponsible for media to pick one and focus on it as an irrefutable truth.
The media frames how we view relevant stories in so many ways. In 2011 President Obama passed the dream act. The purpose of the dream act was to aid children who were brought to the country illegally by their parents before they were age 16. The executive order was soon brought up on charges as unconstitutional. While some media outlets framed the executive order as amnesty for all illegal immigrants, others presented it as the moral thing to do for millions of children who should not be made to pay for the crimes of their parents. As a representative for Cuny’s Citizenship Now initiative( CUNY provides free legal advice and help applying for citizenship if eligible) ; this now included helping people fill out paper work for the dream act. I did a lot of research on the dream act and what I noticed was framing at its core. The news outlet that were against the initiative presented it as amnesty and a free pass for illegal immigrants even though they were several dis qualifiers in the order. The news who were against the initiative also presented more opinionated pieces instead of factual information on what the bill actually entailed. We all have the right to our opinion but I think media outlets have used to framing to deliver their outlook on certain topics to the masses.
Hi Grace,
A very timely post. I am always interested at how media portrays these events because it usually betrays their inherent bias. The language used, the lead up and discussion afterward can be skewed with language that frames the issues in particular ways.
Part of the framing of this issue is that Baltimore stopped running mass transit near some schools and then acted surprised when kids were milling about. Despite that fact, many news organizations left that out of their coverage until Mother Jones brought it up the following day.
Framing is using context in an intentional way to obscure or clarify an issue by the media. One of the most heavily framed debates today is the issue of police brutality against minority communities. With the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner and now Freddie Gray, this is an important conversation we need to be having.
Specifically, Michael Brown was portrayed by differing media outlets as either a youngster getting into trouble or a thug. Depending on that frame, the conversations diverged. Right wing news thought the officer, Darren Wilson, was completely justified in using deadly force and readily believed that Michael Brown posed a deadly threat to his safety. Left wing media were more likely to see Michael Brown as a child, only 18, and focused more on his future and his potential.
Hey Grace !
Great post. I recently read a great article on the riots in TIME magazine. The article showed all sides of the story even a small interview with Baltimore’s mayor who used the word “thugs” to describe the actions of some of the rioters. There is a great amount of coverage of what has been happening, but not enough on the reasons why there is such discontent between the citizens of Baltimore and the police of the city. There was also very little coverage of the faction of citizens that stood in between the rioters and the police to find a middle ground and no violence.
Athletes are sometimes revered as Gods in the media. The fact of the matter is that they just like everyone else makes mistakes, some which have dire consequences. A good example of this would be Lance Armstrong. An athlete that was praised by his intense training regiments and a good example of what it was like to survive cancer. The media framed him to be an example for all aspiring athletes and to those suffering with cancers. There was a huge LIVESTRONG campaign promoting health advice and making millions to the plight of cancer. Then there was a huge expose about the use of human growth hormones to enhance his performance.
Just like the media raised this athlete to great heights , they were able to take him to his lowest. All the media coverage on how he “lied” to advance discredited his entire career and efforts for cancer.
This a good example of how the media can frame a person to be a great example and then backpedal to make them look at their worse.
Although framing is not about lying it is about with holding certain facts while placing a light on other facts. The journalist makes a choice to place importance on some facts more than others. In such cases as the Eric Garner case instead of focusing on the police misconduct many news outlets chose to focus on Eric Garner’s criminal history. Yes his criminal history is a fact. However, the criminal history is not a factor of why a police officer chose to use such a hold and when in distress he was delayed medical assistance.