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?
51 thoughts on “Framing in the Media”
Comments are closed.
I’ve decided to answer this question about framing by looking at the Steubenville rape case.
A little background about the case…
In August 2012, two high school boys were charged with raping a 16-year-old girl at a party. There were reports and incriminating videos and photographs released on YouTube and other social media by friends and classmates that supports that the girl was raped repeatedly, over several hours. This case is unique to others because a lot of the facts that were known by the public (even before the investigation and trial were complete) were discovered through social media postings. An online hacker coined “anonymous” also got involved when he felt that the small town was not handling the investigation properly. This surge of information led to the town being split into two hostile camps; the side that believed that the rape culture surrounding football teams is a huge problem and the boys are guilty, and the one that thinks outsiders who do not know all the facts are making harsh judgments against innocent boys.
The media took to this case almost immediately once details became known throughout the nation months after it was reported on local news on August 22, 2012. The New York Times released one of the first stories about this case entitled “Rape Case Unfolds on Web and Splits City” on December 16, 2012. I think that this article did a good job of presenting facts from both sides of the case and keeping journalistic opinions out of it. After that article however, there seemed to be a media frenzy that erupted with various frames. It was surprising to me how many different news station media outlets were supporting the football players and leaving the victim and her attack out of it. I read in an article about the following stories/frames reported:
CNN reported that the “boys were promising students.”
ABC made excuses for the rapists in reports.
NBC commented on their “promising football careers.”
Associated Press/USA Today focused on the victim being drunk in reports.
Yahoo stated that the victim “forced the town into an emotional situation”
(http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/18/1732701/media-steubenville/)
The above media outlets (specifically news stations and reporters) framed it in a way that sought to preserve the reputation of the boys and in turn, the town. These reports took away from the real issue, a 16-year-old girl was attacked and egregiously victim blamed after she came forward. Special interests seemed to be included in this frame, such as preserving the reputation of the town and the football program.
Another frame regarding this case, one that came shortly after the case influencing and damaging stories above, came from change.org. They petitioned CNN to apologize on air regarding its coverage of the case and sympathizing with rapists. Additionally, Bloggers took to posting claims that this case was not being properly investigated and that the media, investigators, and rape culture were in part to blame for the town being split. This was framed in a way to push public interest and the safety of the citizens, and more specifically, children in the community. From my research, it seems that the online reports of this case were the ones to more fully support the victim and igniting change within the culture.
This frame drew attention to the victim and the culture surrounding the attack and investigation. It does not take into account anything to support the boy’s actions, the value of the large football program, or their reputation within the community.
This case, in my opinion, has since been reframed to showcase rape culture surrounding small towns and large football programs. When researching this topic now, the articles that are listed mostly involve how this case was improperly framed in the media and discuss the need for a shift in rape culture throughout the nation.
Hey Keri, it was interesting reading your response on how any media outlets can take a story and just frame it in a way to make the general public formulate a certain opinion. I think that this ties into the readings we did last week about public vs traditional journalism. I think that with public journalism being the new cultural way, news channels (reporters) easily influence the general public who do not have time to do their own research on a story and formulate their own opinions. It’s sad that these news stations framed the story to only sympathize with the boys who sexually assaulted this young lady – with the interest to preserve the town’s reputation.
Keri, your response is a good example of what happens in the absence of a diverse media. If majority of the media are of the same ideology they turn to push a similar agenda. They turn to control the narrative and limit their scope of reporting. Its interesting how later reports of the same incident analyzed it from another angle and succeeded in changing the narrative. This shows the importance of a diverse media and the role they play in shaping public opinion.
Chris, you make a valid point. It is said that framing determines the agenda and influences the public on how to process the information presented. When you have multiple major news outlets sympathizing with “young boys with a promising football careers,” the public will tend to sympathize in the same way. That is why I think it is a great thing that we have social media outlets and the internet in general. With diverse outlets of media we don’t always have to agree with what we see on tv because we have different perspectives from other outlets telling us different opinions and we get to choose which to believe.
Hey Keri,
Along with framing, you provided a good example of public journalism. As you mentioned, classmates released videos and photos of the victim, which revealed that she was raped repeatedly for hours. If this information was not available to news outlets, the story may have been framed differently. Glad to see the voices in the town were heard, although the views may have been split.
Keri,
I actually briefly remember this when it occurred. You bring up a good point that this case was unique because the evidence was available to the public before an investigation and statement could me made. With many situations, authorities want to control the information that the media gets a hold of. The phrase “the media will have a field-day with this” plays here because when the message is not controlled, every outlet gets to form their own opinion and conclusion to publish out to the world. We saw this with the varying reports and responses from ABC, Fox, AP, etc. It was sad how the media frenzy over the situation detracted from the real issue at hand.
Keri, this example provides a lot of insight into the ability of the media to invoke public discussion. This case makes very clear the societal phenomena that characterize instances such as this one. The switch from the slanted frame to what most would describe as objectivity is in the same pattern as the move made by the public. It is concerning knowing that the media delivers news that sells, and that this is the representation of the story that they believed would be best received by their viewers.
This year especially, the Black Lives Matter movement became widely popular sue to the unjustifiable killings of Black men and women by police officers. Especially in the case of Michael Brown, an 18 years old Black man who was shot by a police officer. Protests sparked in Ferguson, Missouri (where the incident occurred) after officer Daren Wilson was not indicted for firing 12 rounds of shots at an unarmed Michael Brown in the name of self-defense.
As protests began in Ferguson, the “Hands up, don’t shoot” campaign started because many not credible sources claimed that in the midst of the incident Michael Brown raised his hands in surrender and mouthed “Don’t shoot” as officer Wilson shot him. I was watching Fox News one day and the reporters demanded an apology from the protesters who started “Hands Up Don’t Shoot.” The Fox reporters claimed that because officer Wilson was not indicted and acted in self defense, and also because the story of Michael Brown raising his hands could not be proven the protesters have to apologize to Darren Wilson and his family. The Washington Post’s opinion writer Jonathan Capehart wrote an entire column stating that the Hands Up Don’t Shoot phrase was built on a lie.
Many people such as former Daily Show Host Jon Stewart criticized Fox News and the whole idea of trying so hard to erase the phrase from the protest. It was trying to take away from the main reason why people were protesting. The reports were also framed to try and insinuate that the protest was being done on false pretense; just because Michael Brown may have to actually put his hands up does not take away from the fact that he was unarmed and the police officer still felt the need to shoot him 12 times. To demand an apology from protesters was ridiculous and stating that officer Wilson acted out of “self-defense” does not make his action tolerable. The entire Ferguson protest was on the basis of bringing attention to the injustice against not only the Black race but the idea that people should feel protected by police officers and not frightened of their lives. News stations such as NBC, ABC and CNN used “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” a few times throughout the protests and Fox News reports stated that the above listed news channels needed to have addressed the fact that the phrase was misconstrued.
Hi Kristia,
I agree with your statement that the controversy about the protesters deflected the reason that they were protesting. This was a thoughtful plan from Fox to bring attention to a much smaller issue – the protesters – rather than the larger issue – police killing innocent people.
The media is always trying to frame and spin situations for one agenda to another. It is unfortunate that these smaller incidents are able to distract the country from the real problem at hand. Since the news cycle is so fast, if this is done successfully, it can distract the general public from the large issue at hand until something else takes over the front page.
This is a good example of episodic framing focusing on the truth of one detail to distract people from the idea that regardless of whether his hands were up or not he shouldn’t have been shot.
Hi Kristia,
This was very interesting. As I read about Fox News and their demand for an apology from the protestors, I could help but think about the FCC and the fear of relaxing ownership rules. As different news outlets continue to frame their agenda through events, we should appreciate differences in viewpoints.
Krista,
This a great point you raise. It is scary to think how much power the media has in manipulating a situation and pursuing its viewers. Although we have news outlets like Fox News, who caters to a specific group of people, the media has also made it possible for unjust deaths to be witnessed and fought for. Unfortunately, it is becoming too common to see our minority youth being killed by those who take an oath to protect us. However, the exposure that the media is giving this issue, is allowing movements like the “Hands up, don’t shoot” to begin. Whether the news story is good or bad, it is creating awareness within those affected by the situation.
When I think about Black Lives Matter and the idea of reframing the argument to take down the movement I can not help but think about what the Right Wing did – All Lives Matter. Well both are true statement, but both can be true without denying the other. All Lives Matter was a way of reframing what Black Lives Matter was saying and thereby attempting to negate its importance. Sick really if you asked me.
Expanding on what transpired in Ferguson, the media’s coverage of the rioting that followed the shooting is also worth commenting on. The media developed a narrative of anarchy and unrest; framed the story as local authorities and the majority of the city falling victim to an unruly mob, the police spent years suppressing. Meanwhile this frame ignored the deeper issues that instigated the rioting.
Dr. Martin Luther King said “a riot is the language of the unheard”. The unheard are the 80% African-American community of Ferguson represented by the 100% White City Council of Ferguson. The unheard are the over 50% unemployed young black men of Ferguson, who are “protected” by the over 90% white police department of Ferguson. These numbers go to tell you that the riot is not a tantrum caused by a shooting of an unarmed black teenager, as shown by CNN and Fox News, but the straw that broke the camels back in a long history of systemic injustice suffered by the people of Ferguson.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/04/17-disturbing-statistics-from-the-federal-report-on-ferguson-police/
New health studies are often framed by the media in a way that is disingenuous to readers. For example, here is coverage of a new study, out today, discussing the results of a new study on dogs and children: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2015/11/30/Study-Having-a-pet-dog-may-reduce-risk-of-childhood-anxiety/6031448896191/
This article has utilized an episodic frame for this study, making it appear as though it is a standalone event. This is stereotypical of the coverage of new health studies. How often have we seen headlines boasting about the latest food to be associated with a decrease in one’s cancer risk? However, while using this frame might make for an easy article, it oversimplifies the study. Instead, when covering new health studies, media should either be using a thematic frame or a journey frame.
No single study contains the answers to all our health issues. Often they have flaws that limit results, or are a small buildup on previous studies. A thematic frame would be better to put a study in context along with other, similar studies. For example, previous studies have also shown positive health effects of dogs with children. A better article would frame the latest news in the context of other research. This article only mentions that in a single sentence.
A better way to frame it would also be to showcase the journey of research on children and anxiety. Simply getting a dog won’t help a child’s anxiety, but discussing how this research builds on previous studies may better help a parent reading the news.
I agree Doug many reports on health studies do seem to be framed by the media that is disingenuous. We often see dramatic titles such as, “Study Finds Drinking Coffee Reduces Chance of a Heart Attack”. However to be fair in this article the authors do state weaknesses with study and point that other factors need to be looked at the title also states “may” suggesting that it isn’t a proven fact. I feel it would be framed in a misleading context had the word “may” not been included. The fact that the reporter states weaknesses in the study they are in a sense being objective.
It is true a better way to frame it would be to showcase the journey of research on children and anxiety. It seems the author is not doing an in-depth report rather only talking about the findings of one report. In a sense it makes me wonder if this report was even news worthy.
Framing- The use of words or images to strategically draw attention to one aspect of an object or event and divert attention from other aspects of the same entity
In the article NSA: Not Tracking Phones is a Real Mistake (http://nypost.com/2015/11/29/nsa-not-tracking-phones-is-real-mistake/) and articles like this have framed decreasing citizens right to privacy as a part of the war on terror. Articles like this push the idea that citizens privacy must be restricted if we want to prevent terrorist attacks. Articles like this and others feed on peoples fears and hope to get people to see the need for a big brother system all in the name of security. Every time an attack takes place reports come out that technology is making security agencies jobs difficult and they need greater access into systems that contain information citizens believe to be private.
Freddy I agree with you,the government with the aid of the media have on several occasions used fear to promote its agenda.A good example was when it used the populaces fear of weapons of mass destruction to get the nation to go to war in Iraq.It’s interesting how the republican presidential candidates are currently exploiting the new wave of Islamophobia and are framing their narrative to feed into this fear. Donald Trump wants all muslims to carry a special ID and Ben Carson wants America to accept only christian refugees.
Freddy I agree with your comment under Doug’s post. You’ve mentioned about the possibility of objectivity in the study as the reported stated that their are weaknesses and you make a valid point. I think most of the problems with those articles come a lot with titles/headlines. I think the way the title/headline is written determine, most of the times, the type of framing.Doug raised the question in his blog post,”How often have we seen headlines boasting about the latest food to be associated with a decrease in one’s cancer risk?” and that is usually the trend when it comes to new health studies.
Framing theory implies that how the information is delivered to the public influences how the audience react to it. One of the example of Media framing (Trayvon Martin) is how certain media outlets portrait him. Some, as a black young thug who happened to be wearing a hoodie the day he got killed; while others portrait as a respectful teenager who baked cookies for his young cousin. Unfortunately, in the society we are living it, the sight of young black men wearing a hoodie is pretty much scary most of the time.
Let’s analyze this article published by Miami Herald on March 22, 2012 (Trayvon Martin a typical teen who love video games, looked forward to Prom). This article only focused on the positive traits and positive social behavior of Trayvon Martin: He saved his father’s life from a house in fire when was only 9 years old. Academically, He was an A and B student. He was exposed to different kind of activities such as: Snowboarding, skiing and riding snowmobile. Unlike most teenagers, flying planes or being a mechanic was his field of interest. One of his teacher, Mss. Gant stated: “He’d often wear a hoodie at school just like the one he was wearing the day he was killed in Stanford.” In this article, we realized Trayvon Martin wearing a Hoodie while in school did not cause harm or cost him his life.
With the help of Media outlet, George Zimmerman’s Lawyers try to paint a different picture of Trayvon Martin. They did not portrait him as a respectful teenager but as a dangerous young black teen. They showed pictures of Martin wearing gold teeth and doing obscene hand gesture. They emphasize on Trayvon Martin’ s Marijuana use and also being a gang banger. He did not behave well in school. He was suspended for writing “W.T.F” on a hallway locker according to a school report.
In the case of Treyvon Martin most of the media outlets focus on episodic framing. To add more, at the time, they focused on the immediate incident and gave little context about the underlying issues. It’s as if media outlets, when using episodic framing, were less likely considering society responsible (structural issues) for the event. More so they focus only on the individual, in that case, Trayvon Martin. In doing so, they omit to put the event into a broader context as it would be the case if using thematic framing.
One of the most devastating natural disasters to occur in the North East in recent years was Superstorm/Hurricane Sandy. This relates to framing due to the deliberate confusion that occurred as a result of the actual naming of the storm. Typically, it would have been called Hurricane Sandy and that would be the end of it. I noticed that Public/Special Interest framing played a role here in the name “Superstorm” replacing Hurricane. There are many theories for why this of all storms was dubbed a Superstorm. Some say that it was just a buzz word used by journalists. Others argue that insurance companies would not have to pay a full claim if it was a Superstorm rather than a Hurricane. For the purpose of framing, there are arguments that it was called a Superstorm because Global Warming played a factor into the strength and destruction power of the storm. Where “hurricanes” are seen as a natural disaster, a “superstorm” is more than a hurricane because it has more damaging affects due to the rise in sea levels and temperatures caused by global warming. This gave politicians and activists another platform for which to argue the increasing affects that global warming can have on the environment. All of the stats on the loss of life and damages cost now aid in supporting the threat of global warming. If the storm was called a Hurricane from the beginning, the entire framing of the storm into a political topic would have not occurred.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-global-warming-made-hurricane-sandy-worse-15190
The unfortunate timing of the full moon coinciding with the peak of the storm added to the height of the high tide and the mystique of the storm.
Hezbollah stronghold or Busy working class neighborhood
On November 12 ISIS suicide bombers killed 45 people and injured 239 in Beirut, Lebanon. Media outlets – CNN, NYTimes – reported the bombing took place in a neighborhood “Hezbollah stonghold.” On November 13 ISIS suicide bombers killed 130 and injured 368 in Paris, France. The media expressed horror and revulsion and the world responded with an outpouring of sympathy.
The conceptual framing around the deaths in Beirut directed attention away from the victims to view the event as one more in an unstable region while reporting from Paris focused on the experience and suffering of the many individuals affected. The comparison demonstrates a bias in presenting terrorism beyond the west as more tolerable.
This inconsistency of approach itself became news in the days after the bombings as noted in this article.
Beirut, Also the Site of Deadly Attacks, Feels Forgotten
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/world/middleeast/beirut-lebanon-attacks-paris.html?_r=0
I think what is also interesting, Maureen, about this issue is that the media tends to frame the story by what they choose – and don’t choose – to cover. The Paris attacks clearly engendered days and days of coverage, surrounding ISIS, the Middle East, etc. However, there is obviously violence every day in Syria, Iraq and other places, and the media only covers it at certain times. By not covering it, they are framing it as not important.
After the first republican presidential debates, CNN run a programme which was focus on fact checking, it cross checked the facts with what the candidates said on stage. It was interesting because all the candidates were found to have at one stage manipulated the facts to favor their campaign. It was therefore surprising to me how the liberal media led by CNN decided to single out Ben Carson and to a lesser extent Ted Cruz and frame them as liars.
We all know Ben Carson’s tale of maybe stabbing someone to Ted Cruz’s stories of the exploits of his father in the Cuban revolution did not happen exactly as they said but it still had some truth to it. In the case of Ben Carson the media outlets framed it in a way that sought to discredit him and portray him as a liar. In their efforts to brand a candidate a liar, they often miss the deeper question of what drove people to tell these stories the way they did and what they were seeking to achieve. Ben Carson recounted in his memoir, Gifted Hands, a story about trying to stab a classmate. When reporters couldn’t locate classmates who could recall such an incident or the person who was stabbed the media had a field day and frame him as a liar.
I initially saw it as a fact finding initiative (keeping them honest) by the media but it was when they started to question other aspects of his life beyond his book that I realized the propaganda behind the stories.
Below are some of the frames carried by the media:
CNN reported that contrary to Carson’s assertion that his youth was plagued by anger, it had located no less than nine acquaintances that maintain he was a nice kid a half century ago.
The Politico published a national broadside suggesting Carson’s campaign had admitted he’d “fabricated” a story about applying to West Point.
The Wall Street Journal disclosed it could find no records validating his anecdote about a Yale course called “Perceptions 310” and in fact there is no evidence of a course by that name taught
It became obvious this was not just fact checking but a media character assassination and they were framing the narrative to get their audience to discredit the candidate. The media could have frame this story to portray a man who overcame the violence contained in his upbringing, crafted an identity for himself and made himself into the man he is today. They rather started a smear campaign.
Ideologies now determine the path of their investigations. Fox news was the one leading the character assignation charge during President Obama’s campaign whiles the liberal media did the opposite. It’s interesting how the roles change and how these media outlets frame narratives to support their ideologies.
One issue which has gained significant attention recently is the debate on whether or not to defund Planned Parenthood. Some may say yes the federal government should to fund Planned Parenthood because they provide resources for abortions and the federal government should not support abortion. Alternately, some may see this as a valuable resource for women and support these institutions since they are pro-life. Thus, the issue of defunding Planned Parenthood becomes an issue of abortion. On the other hand there are some who see past the abortion issue and recognize other health services the program offers which varies from sexual education, contraceptives, testing and screening in an affordable and accessible way. Headlines in the media such as “Facts about the unborn are unclear: defund Planned Parenthood” and phrases such as the “nation’s largest abortion seller,” places a negative impact on the organization altogether. It ignores, the other services that are offered and the benefits that many can gain from keeping federal funding of the organization.
Media framing has focused the issue to an abortion issue and pro-life/pro-choice matter rather than all aspects of the organization.
Anuradha-I completely agree with you. There are many media outlets that have been framing the issue to only focus on abortion. Additionally, I have seen a lot of articles (through Facebook, i must admit) that call attention to the other side of the issue that you mentioned above, the alternate services provided to women through Planned Parenthood. It is evident that this issue could be framed either way depending on what the media outlet wants to achieve from the story.
Hey Anuradha, it really saddens me that this issue is one that is so political and specifically in my opinion puts women in a corner. The quoted headlines you mentioned are definitely few of many that sheds a negative light in Planned Parenthood. Also, what people need to think about as you mentioned is that the organization provides other services to youths – that are beneficial. It’s definitely time we as a society start looking pass the whole issue of pro-life/pro-choice thing.
Great point, Anuradha. I’m pretty sure, from seeing past stats, that abortions are actually a very small portion of the overall services that Planned Parenthood provides. And yet, as you point out, media tend to always frame any story about the organization in terms of abortion. It sadly plays into the political narrative. Opinions could be far different on the organization if media provided a different frame – a more objective one.
I also agree with your point. I think news channel frame Planet parenthood shooting differently based on their views. I think mostly channels used thematic frame on this issue. With one shooting they try to cover- gun rights, mental health, hate speech, domestic violence and states rights. Mostly channel used the frame, so they can reach an bigger part of audience. Therefore, it is very important to understand the technique of media framing to reduce biases.
Anuradha, this is a great example of framing a story by focusing on single-issue constituencies. Abortion is a hugely controversial issue in many areas of the country, where just mention of ties to its practice or favor can send support running in the other direction. The instances in which an electorate has voted against its own interest because of rumor of a candidate’s support for, or even complacency about, abortion rights (even when the candidate is running for an office that has no hand in law regulating abortion) are countless. For any media to consciously choose to frame the Planned Parenthood as an organization that “sells” abortions is a mindful action taking focus away from all other aspects of the group’s mission. In that Facebook seems to be the best place to find a collection of people who post about Planned Parenthood’s varied beneficial services one might see where the shift in audiences, and where they receive their news, is taking place.
War on Drugs
The media has the power to construct the meaning of race and plays a pivotal role in defining blacks as criminals as a result to how they are presented to readers and viewers (Welch, 2007). The war on drugs was televised excessively through the media and was a contributing factor in reshaping the image of criminals or those who pose a threat to society . The Reagan administration used the media to publicize crack cocaine to gain support for the war on drugs. In October 1985, the DEA send Robert Stutman to serve as director of its New York City office and charged him with the responsibility of shoring up public support for the administration’s new war (Alexander, 2010).Stutman focused on improving relations with the news media and draw journalist attention on the spread of crack in inner-city communities. Stutman states “ The media were only too willing to cooperate, because as far the New York media was concerned, crack was the hottest combat reporting story to come along since the end of the Vietnam War”(Alexander, 2010). By June 1986, thousands of stories about the crack crisis were broadcast on airwaves and news-waves, and had clear racial subtext in their articles (Alexander, 2010).These articles had an repeated theme that depicted black “crack whores,” “crack babies,” and “gangbangers,” reinforcing already prevalent racial stereotypes of black women as irresponsible, selfish “welfare queens,” and black men as “predators”—part of an inferior and criminal subculture (Alexander, 2010). The recurring images of blacks in the discussion of the crack crisis had detrimental effects on the black community.
News media coverage disproportionately showed blacks being arrested and on trial for drug and violent crimes compared to their white counterparts. Data also supports the disproportionate amount of arrested that have been made according to race. Between 1980 and 1989, the arrest rates increased by 89% between 1980 and 1989 (Snyder, 2011). A drastic increase of arrest for drug possession occurred between 1985 and 1989. Out of all races, blacks had the highest arrest rates for drug possession, hitting over a million by 1990, compared to whites, who had a total of $600,00 arrest (Snyder, 2011).
Sources are available below.
Alexander, M. (20102011). The new Jim Crow: mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (Rev. ed.). New York: New Press ;
Snyder, H. N. (2011). Arrest in the United States, 1980-2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Welch, K. (2007). Black Criminal Stereotypes And Racial Profiling. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(3), 276-288.
Nickiesha-thanks for sharing this. It is evident from your post that the media framing of the “war on drugs” did significant damage to the black community. It is clear that because of this negative stereotypes that are still believed today were reinforced during this time. I just found an interesting article that was published in 2013 by the Huffington Post that discusses racial disparity in drug use. Thought it was an interesting follow up article to share.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/racial-disparity-drug-use_n_3941346.html
In the beginning, and still today, the gentrification of Brooklyn is framed as a social policy issues describing the rebirth and revitalization of communities. Prominent media such as The New York Times and The Huffington Post have framed the issues from two perspectives. It draws attention to the influx of the wealthy, predominantly from Manhattan, and the relocation and growth of businesses now located in what is described as the mecca of Brooklyn. What used to be called West Bed-Stuy is now referred to and perceived as East Fort Greene by elites who are moving into these neighborhoods. Its architecture is illustriously described as well maintained brown stones with prices that range between $600,000 to $1 million plus. Rentals range between $2,000 to $4000. The areas are being referred to as neighborhoods in transition. This type of language clearly signals a change and implies that it is now better than what it was because the demographics have changed. The Times refers to statistics from the 2010 census bureau that indicates a 149 percent increase in whites over year 2000 and a decline in the number of blacks. The author emphasizes the upscale amenities of these communities and successes of the schools noting their high scores compared to lower citywide scores. Even as she describes the history of Clinton Hills the focus is directed to the mid-19th century, however, not focusing on the recent history and why and how the community has transitioned to its current status and the effect on long-term, low-income residents.
From a different author in The New York Times, the same social policy issue is re-framed as due to gentrification, minority and low-income tenants in Crown Heights are being forced out of their apartments by unscrupulous landlords. Landlords are refusing to do maintenance to force out existing, long-term tenants to cash in on higher rental income in the gentrified neighborhoods. Long-term residents are subjected to inhumane conditions and are not necessarily receiving adequate assistance from the Housing Court. As a result, most low-income tenants are forced to share an apartment with relatives or friends or relocate to other states where they can afford a cheaper cost of living. According to the NY Times Statistics from the 2010 census released by the Department of City Planning shows that gentrified areas lost between 10-14 percent of their black population. Additionally low-income families in gentrified areas were relegated to homeless shelters or public housing. While the article captures the downside of gentrification, it failed to explore the relationship and responsibilities between the judicial system, local elected officials in protecting this vulnerable population.
Media framing effects depend not only on the content of communication frames, but also on individuals’ frequent disclosure of the issues and the perceptions of the credibility of their source. Framing an issue can help us think about the issue and how it can be addressed.The frames that appeared in the news show different sides of the immigration debate- those in disagreement for more preventive immigration policies and those arguing for more positive policies. The positive side of media framing were expressed in the news mostly by immigrants themselves and demonstrators at rallies. The vast majority of the frames consists of a reason for changes to immigration law. For example, Los Angeles Times presented arguments for a more restrictive immigration policies such as “state officials are going to enforce a provision that allows police officers to make lawful stops, to check the immigration status of people who may be in the country illegally.” The news media tend to frame immigration issues that represent immigrants as problems. They use the word “immigration” to be linked with “illegal”, the news media frame immigrants as criminals as if they were dangerous people.They frame these immigrants as a risk to the safety of American people. On the other side, BBC news presented a more positive reform policy to immigrants-three challenges were upheld on the immigration status of people who were stopped or arrested in Arizona. Both of these involve a selective focus on a meticulous aspect of an issue of a particular outcome.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-18109821
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/25/news/la-pn-supreme-court-strikes-down-key-parts-of-arizona-immigration-law-20120625
Elaine, immigration is an excellent topic to use in the context of framing. The perception of the public on immigration is unfortunately so easily manipulated by the media. You can portray a migrant as a hard working individual sacrificing everything for a better life and better opportunities, or as a criminal who invades a country to absorbs resources and fails to contribute to society. It is truly sad how framing can dehumanize an individual and serve to justifies injustices against him/her, as is family separations inflicted by deportations or exploitation in the labor market to name a few. Take for example the crisis of refugees in Europe. Based on a speculation that one of the Paris attackers had entered France through the refugee route, many US governors were denouncing the acceptance of refugees from that part of the world into their states. Their decision was framed by the media as a safety concern for the country. However, the media failed to report on the extensive and rigorous process to be granted refugee status in the U.S. and the low likelihood that an attack by a refugee would ever occur, creating support for something that has no real foundation.
The shooting that occurred today in San Bernardino, California was framed in the media as a terrorist attack and as the story developed, as an issue of gun control. As the event unfold, because of the magnitude of the situation and the similarities with the Paris attacks last month, news outlets were following and reporting on every update of the story in case it did turn out to be that the U.S. was being attacked. Much like the attacks in Paris, the attackers had entered a venue in which people had congregated in and killed over a dozen individuals and injuring others. The story was being broadcast in every news channel, interrupting normal programming. The same amount of news coverage would’ve been very different had the Paris attacks and possible ISIS threats not been so recent. Rather than portraying this as a episodic framing as has been the case of other massacre shootings, the media was framing this thematically as a possible terrorist act.
As the story developed and President Obama addressed the public on what was happening, he assured the public that this was not an act of terrorism from a foreign country but rather an act caused by the irregularities in gun control. The story was now thematically framed around the issue of gun control. News reports had detached from ISIS and Paris and were now highlighting the mass shootings and the devastation that the lack of gun control has caused across the nation. BCC even described today’s event as “just another day in the United States of America. Another day of gunfire, panic and fear.” It amazes me how much destruction the lack of gun control has caused and how nothing is being done. How many more massacres and unnecessary deaths will it take for the government to step in and regulate guns in this country? Why after so much destruction are we reluctant to accept that although the right to bare arms is a constitutional right, the constitution was written during a different time and it no longer applies to the way of life today? Although the frame draws attention to the consequences of lacking gun control, the media fails to report on the reasons why gun control has failed regularization.
Shareny, I agree. With the recent attack on Paris and the shooting in San Bernadino, there has been an increased framing of the media on gun control now more than ever. Another way in which the Paris attacks were framed was that it thematically framed around the issue of the refugee crisis. After a fake Syrian passport was recognized as the way one of the attackers got into Paris, the debate has led the media to question whether we should be letting refugees into our country.Many feel it may dangerous to allow refugees in because we may be opening our borders to acts of terrorism. Therefore, the Paris attacks were used to framed multiple issues in the media (gun control, refugee crisis, etc.).
Shareny, I also agree with your point. The shooting in the Bernardino, California was first portrayed as an ISIS attack in many news channels. However, as Barack Obama announced that it was from a domestic terrorist attack then, media totally change their frame to get people’s attention in a particular issue. It just changed the theme from ISIS attack to gun control. Therefore, how media frame their news have a great impact on people. Moreover, I agree your point about Paris attack. I saw that how news channel highly shown the Syrian passport that was found during attack than any other incident of the event. This passport did not just show a symbol, it also showed that we should not take more Syrian refugees. Therefore, how media frame the news affects people’s opinion greatly.
The reading “Introduction Faming Political Issues In America”, authors Callaghan and Scheme focuses on different types of farming. Episodic framework is one of them and it is used frequently in the current news channel. Recently in the shooting for Bernardino, California, many news channel started to portray as an ISIS attack before the actual investigation. Their news headline is “Intelligence officials hunt for link to terror groups as ISIS praise San Bernardino attack by Muslim”. This news article eventually tries to compare the shooting with an ISIS attack. They use this framing to explain how ISIS can be link with it. This technique helped them to get the attention of large amount of audience especially those people who have fear of ISIS attack rather than another domestic terrorism. Moreover, they mention that the shooter likes to read religious books rather than regular book. This shows me that how media can use the framing to send a particular message. Although this shooting can be another domestic terrorism, how the news channel portrayed two gun mans are Muslim by mentioning frequent times will eventually effect the Muslim community in the county. This frame for Muslim’s ISIS attack can divert the public opinion about Muslim.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3343882/Intelligence-officials-hunt-link-terror-groups-ISIS-praise-San-Bernardino-attack-left-14-dead-17-injured.html
Nabila, I definitely agree with you. Indeed media can frame a story to do a particular message. The way they cover some stories tend to encourage stereotypical biases in people reading or viewing the news. In the end, when doing so, unfortunately some people become misrepresented as terrorist even when they are not.
The portrayal of gun rights activism and gun control support in the media is detrimental in its polarized framing. Those who fight for gun rights do so out of fear that their liberties will be taken away along with them. However difficult that might be for some of us to understand, the language about the lack of gun control used in opposing media is extremely difficult to reconcile. This is one instance where there is much common ground, but where, amongst the public (whose votes legislators want and need) there is no understanding or compromise, because the media-driven sentiment is that the “other” has no desire to see their story. Those who would argue that it is not guns, but people, who commit gun-crimes, employ evidence that supports the move for increased screening, vetting, and classification of gun owners and ownership applicants to determine mental stability and capacity. Because of the regularity with which all media feels it necessary to twist the context in which gun control is spoken about, where certain media flouts the President’s call to bring attention to the realities of gun violence, and others the need for liberal administration to constantly turn all events into an attack on guns, there is little ability to see a rationality in compromise.
I agree with you Nabila that the media can use framing to send a particular message. In many ways, framing can be closely tied with setting an agenda. They both focus on how the media draw the public’s eye and attention to certain topics which sets the agenda. However, framing in the news is presented in which it creates a frame for that information., which journalist prefer to use when they present their ideas and topics they cover.
Jennifer, you bring in an interesting topic about the Treyvon Martin case. The news media is a big problem. Frames simplify complex issues in diverse ways. Some frames are collected with influential intent and some emphasize the moral aspects. It’s hard to tell the news from reality these days. The media never lets’ facts get in between what they can sensationalize and turn into a show. The misinformation in mainstream media coverage did not begin until the Martin family lawyers and publicist got involved and took initiative to create their own narrative.
The Paris Climate talks have brought attention to two of my favorite media frames involving climate change. The first is the idea, presented in almost every Op-ed and opinion piece that I’ve read in the last month, suggests that this vast constituency is the only the thing stopping Western governments from adopting the goals of the COP21 Conference. It’s a compelling narrative for US coastal liberals but like many things climate-change related, it’s a cheap framing of a far more complex issue. Climate change deniers might have some support from representatives in Congress but this is A) not nearly as big a lobbying coalition as it’s made out to be and B) ignores the fact that left leaning social liberals are working just as hard as the “climate skeptics” to obstruct any meaningful change in this area in that they are doing absolutely nothing to stop the problem. Every foreign leader who went to Paris to participate in these talks took a plane and all hail from countries whose population, left and right alike, enjoy things such as electricity, cars, and agriculture (which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for fertilizer production). Regardless of the climate change denier’s poor understanding of science, they are no more or less responsible, in any meaningful sense of the word, for climate change than anyone else.
The secondary frame that is also at work in all these discussions is the idea that humans have the power to do anything about climate change at all. Again, it’s a convenient narrative, but ignores the fact that even if we cut emissions by 100% today (which would effectively require the global human population to convert to an Amish way of living), we are still due for at least one degree of warming across the globe thanks to the delayed positive feedback effects inherent in global climate systems (it should be noted that some models put even this figure as too conservative). Americans in particular are still prone to thinking that as a nation that went to the Moon, we can do anything but as more and more coastal cities are declared disaster zones, I suspect that the framing of this issue will eventually shift to “time to move upstate.”
I have been having a lot of conversations in a political discourse group I am involved with about Radical Islam. There are those in the group who view Islam as a whole as “evil” not making the nuanced distinction between Radical Islam and Muslims in general. When I consider the arguments those in the group who truly think that all of Islam and its followers are terrorists I have to think about how this point of view came to be. It is how some in the media portray and speak in sweeping generalizations about this group. When the media one consumes continually says Islam and the Muslim world to describe terrorists and not Radical Islam the generalization begins to frame all of Islam as terrorists. Its seems to me that if we choose not to engage the nuance in a situation, but rather speak in sweeping generalizations, then we begin to frame the issue not as nuanced, with many distinctions, but as a one where we now can speak of entire groups as being something when only a portion of them are. What scares me about generalizations is the when we end of painting an entire group as being something when that is not true, and we drive fear and hate of that group as part of the discourse, we run the risk of repeating the mistakes of the past (as evidenced by Trumps rhetoric on numbering, tracking and publicly identifying all Muslims in America – this is all to reminiscent of numbered tattoos on Jewish people in the 1930’s). Framing is important, nuance in framing is equally important.
One of the most powerful scenario of framing I’ve seen, is with the recent attack in Paris. As mentioned before in one of my post, news travels quickly on Facebook. I was on my page that day when I saw a pop up message with the Paris Flag saying help show support for Paris by changing your cover photo. I instantly turned on my TV to check the different news challenge to come up to speed about what was going on. Of course it was being framed as a terror attack, everyone seemed to have shown so much sympathy for the people of Paris, and it was just getting so much media coverage. I went back on Facebook and that’s where I saw the debates begun. Some people where infuriated that Facebook made such gesture to support Paris and did not do the same for all the lost of lives in Kenya. The media is very influential and strategic about the way they deliver information to us. They certainly use special interest faming. To go back to the issue of consolidation, this is one more reason why I do not agree with the idea because of the lack of diversity.
The violence embedded in American militaristic foreign policy has been muted due to concise phrases used by the Federal government and mainstream media over the past three decades. For instance, the powerful expression “boots on the ground” has framed how many people understand America’s role in international warfare, especially their presence throughout the Middle East.
This impactful phrase softens the devastating effects that America’s military has on the war-torn region of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and countless other nations by drawing attention to the fact that American soldiers are not fighting opponents in a traditional combat way. The new roles of the American military in their most recent wars are “military advisors” and “military commanders”, to name a couple. These vague terms signify that American citizens are not on the front lines of combat; rather, they occupy administrative posts. Drawing attention away from the violence and force that the American military use on other nations through means of drones and airstrikes, the media and government provide an imbalanced rendering of what actually takes place during wartime.
The “boots on the ground” phrase is a component of the “War on Terrorism” frame that Karen Callaghan and Frauke Schnell discuss in their work “Framing Political Issues in American Politics”. They state that “this frame allowed elites to alter public debate [and] …suggest(s) other remedies for terrorism”. The ever-changing definition of “terrorism” allows American politicians to continue wars that may be unjust. Helpful phrases such as “boots on the ground” shifts the emphasis of war, which could have an insidious effect on the American people.
One prominent event in which issue-specific framing is heavily utilized is in war and military operations. A notable example of war framing is when the United States declared war in the Middle East, specifically in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks and then in Iraq, which was referred to as the War on Terror. Employing this tactic, where the government and the media refer to a war on terrorism, rather than a war on people, results in a reframing of the issue that works in the political favor of the government by desensitizing the public from the consequences and violent nature of the war; loosely framing it as a war against a tactic, it dehumanizing the target such that the resulting fatalities are easier to accept by the public. This reframing also sways public favor for the war as people are much more likely to accept and support a war on terrorism rather than a war on a specific nation, as people will oppose terrorism and will want to fight against it, whereas a war against people paints a more vivid and violent picture of human casualties and would garner far more resistance and questioning.
“Casualties” and “collateral damage” are another set of interchangeable terms that are reframed strategically by news and media outlets. While these terms are referring to the capture, injury or death of human beings – combatant and civilian alike, the terms are framed in such a way that it softens the severity of the reality of war. Since casualty can mean so many things and groups all parties together, and collateral damage doesn’t even humanize the victimized individuals, the media is able to report these terrible circumstances in such a way that the public is less likely to be riled up in active opposition.
Folded into the language used to frame war is the term used to describe soldiers who have been sent into combat: a tour of duty. When soldiers go on and return from combat in hostile environments, it is referred to as “completing a tour.” This term is incredibly misleading and certainly reframes the event into something that sounds almost fun – like going on a tour while on vacation, when the reality is that the use of this term diverts attention away from the violence, hardship and trauma the soldiers endure and inflict while they are on these “tours.” This framing strategy is important to ensure the continued interest by young citizens to enlist and serve in the military, as people are far less likely to join if they hear that soldiers are returning from combat and war as opposed to returning from a tour.
The marketing campaigns on television and radio by virtually all oil companies companies usually focus on aspects or themes that are not their main source of income. For instance, in these ads, Exxon Mobil highlights the positive side of natural gas which is expressed by the claim that it creates less CO2 emissions and by the importance of engineers and their tireless work to solve “energetic challenges” in creative ways.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMu1CBjXfq4)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3J57rTWqRQ&index=2&list=PLIrXlHj7zaybJQLyfrFf8aYVzggemt938)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff6uNTYkn1o&list=PLIrXlHj7zaybJQLyfrFf8aYVzggemt938&index=5)
(http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7Dwp/exxon-mobil-americas-future-engineers)
Words such as “clean”, “reduced emissions”, “energy”, “electricity”, “innovation”, etc. are frequently named in these ads, but they seldom mention the words like “oil”, “petroleum”, “fracking,” and other less positive terms. I think that the emphasis of natural gas being almost a renewable source – this is what they many times imply – is a reframing of the bad publicity acquired by hydraulic fracturing or fracking. When hydraulic fracturing is mentioned in an ad it is usually followed by messages of “safety” and “the solution of the future.” Their case is strengthened further by accompanying detailed graphics and young actors playing the parts of STEM students, researchers and engineers.
On the other hand, organizations that do not support hydraulic fracturing, like Americans Against Fracking utilize terms that are more associated with ecological and health risks. These are “fracking” itself, but also include “chemicals”, “dangerous”, “riskier technologies”, etc.
Organizations that oppose this method of extracting oil and natural gas go further and warn people of risks known to them, the use of dangerous substances, and the impact of transporting these substances by trucks nearby children’s schools and neighborhoods.
(http://www.americansagainstfracking.org/about-the-coalition/advisory-board/)
In the end, the use of the words “hydraulic fracturing” and just “fracking” are a good summary of this issue. The first term transmits a more positive idea, more formal language, a scientific message; the second expression, “fracking” is usually associated with the vast environmental impact of the technologies themselves and therefore has a more negative image.