Framing

A few weeks ago, I was listening to my local public radio station (89.1-WUFT) early in the evening. The weekly program Alternative Radio was on. This show presented speakers and topics from a generally leftist perspective, so whether I agreed with what was said or not, it was still interesting. That evening, they rebroadcast speaker George Lakoff’s presentation of his thesis that conservatives have been winning the political and public relations battles with liberals because they learned how to frame issues in a way that predisposed people to agree with their positions. And framing is very important. Here are some examples:

--The Bush administration has always framed the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror. Opponents of the President’s policy hold that Saddam Hussein’s role as abettor to Al-Qaeda was negligible, especially contrasted to that played by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan (our “allies”).

--In the abortion debate, pro-lifers frame the issue around the fetus and its right to live as a human being, while the pro-choice advocates emphasize the fact that the woman is carrying the fetus in her own body, and that because of this she should be in a position to make her own reproductive decisions.

--The issue of gay marriage has been framed by its opponents as “saving the institution of marriage”. Proponents say that it is an issue of civil rights and accuse opponents of bigotry against gays.

--In political campaign seasons, the winning party has usually framed the election issues more to their advantage. For example in 1992, the country bought the Democrats’ “it’s the economy, stupid” line, blamed George H.W. Bush for the recession, and brought in Bill Clinton as President. Only two years later, in 1994 the Republicans took over both the House and the Senate largely because future House Speaker Newt Gingrich promoted a “contract with America” that resonated with the public and defined the campaign. More recently, in 2004, the Republicans retained the Presidency and Congress by successfully equating the War in Iraq with the War on Terror and by making the election a referendum on cultural issues, especially that of gay marriage (which had special referendum votes placed in several states, including the crucial “swing “ state of Ohio). And last year, the Democrats regained Congress largely by framing the election as a referendum on Republican corruption and inaction. Whoever more successfully frames the issues in 2008 in a politically palatable form will more likely than not win that election.

--A sports coach or manager may, once a season begins to go sour with too many losses and too few wins, attempt to reframe that season as being one of rebuilding, and how much the fans should encourage and appreciate the team’s efforts.

--A talk show host may frame himself or herself as being “for the people” by deliberately picking easy news stories to rant indignantly about. Prime example: Bill O’Reilly with his diatribes against the “war on Christmas”, profane and demeaning rap lyrics, and judges he perceives as too lenient toward sex offenders. Not only is Bill looking out for you, but he also can avoid addressing more divisive issues that have a lot of gray areas and subtlety to them. Other hosts use this tactic of self-framing, too, but O’Reilly is utterly shameless about it.

--Although I think that global warming is a real phenomenon, I am tired of politicians and other public figures framing it around punctuated events such as heat waves, forest fires, and hurricanes. In 2004, Al Gore tried to blame global warming (and Bush because he didn’t sign the Kyoto Protocols) for the unusual number of hurricanes that hit Florida that year. Earlier this year, I heard Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blame the Western forest fires on global warming while he was speaking on the Senate floor.

--For many decades, political struggles in Third World countries were framed according to the ongoing Cold War between the West with its leader the United States and the East with its leader the Soviet Union. It was only after the USSR’s collapse in 1991 when internal struggles within these nations began to be interpreted as internal matters of the nations themselves. Now, though, with the struggle between the West and extremist movements within the Islamic nations, those types of struggles are once again beginning to be framed in terms of which elements are more pro- or anti- West.

Framing is important because it determines how an issue is going to be presented and discussed. And this is where bias in different self-proclaimed unbiased or “balanced” media organizations most insidiously rears its ugly head. Also, an issue is usually framed very differently, depending on which side of it one is viewing it from. Just watch Congress in session on either C-Span 1 or 2 when they are debating a bill. Sometimes, from hearing the speakers from both sides of the aisle, you get the feeling that they are talking about two completely different issues. That is usually due to the fact that each side has framed the issue in their own way that serves their own interests. Framing is always going to be here, so it’s a good idea for people to learn to discern how and why issues are framed in certain ways, who is responsible for it, and what’s in it for them. Only then, I believe, can we slog on through the bias in our media and then begin to put together a more objective picture of what’s really going on in the world and our country.