Framing is a technique used by the news media on a daily basis. Framing seeks to affect news media audience in their consumption of the news. Framing refers to utilizing audience expectations to help make sense of a story or an issue. One common way in which the news media seeks to frame stories is focusing on the winners and losers of a particular issue or an event or transforming the issue into a competition between opposing sides, similar to how many sports games are reported. This technique usually is seen with campaigns or issues where there are two or distinct viewpoints.
An example of issue that is often framed in such a way and is currently in public interest would be gun control. An example of an article that frames the gun control issue as competition between two sides would be the New York Times article, "Colorado Gun Control Proposals Face Fight" by Jack Healy. Healy describes the Colorado discussion of modifying gun control proposal as "a crucial stage for the battle over gun-control legislation". The article quotes State Representative Rhonda Fields, who lost her gun to gun violence, as saying, "It will be a fight" when speaking about the "political battle". In his reporting on a tension filled news conference, Healy goes as far to express that "Rumblings of the fight showed themselves quickly at the news conference where the measures were announced." In the same paragraph he places a sly comment from a gun advocate about the farmers and ranchers selling; Healy states "Dudley Brown, a staunch gun advocate muttered, 'It'll make them felons.'" Healy interjects these contentious words and phrases, as well as chooses emotion-filled quotes to frame his article. He is not simply reporting that there is going to be an intense political discussion about the proposed gun-control measures. His use of these words, phrases and quotes paint an image of combative "battle". The term battle alone implies there will be winners and losers. The new measures are not even fully mentioned in the article, just that there will be a political battle over them. Healy's article reinforces the idea that the fight over the measures are more important than the actual measures themselves.
As previously mentioned campaign reporting is often guilty of framing their stories in the vein of winners in losers. The recent Presidential and Congressional elections would be an example of framing in such a way. The focus by many media outlets were not on the debate of issues and policies, but who was ahead in the polls. According to Dave Eggerton's article titled, "Pew: President Draws A Critical Crowd During Primaries" from the trade publication Broadcasting and Cable, which sites a Pew study about the Republican primaries of 2012, "So-called horserace coverage - strategy, momentum, polls, advertising and fundraising - continued to far outpace policy and public record, accounting for 64% of the coverage compared to 12% on their personal lives, 11% on policy and only 6% on their public records". Rather than focusing on public records, which would appear to be an important aspect to look at the competence of candidates running for President, the coverage focused more on who had better polling numbers or had a surging momentum on the campaign trail that month. While obviously the elections are political events where there have to be winners and losers, the Pew study showcases that the discussion of who is winning and who is losing has become the dominant way in which election coverage is framed.
An article from the BBC News Magazine titled, "The shared language of sports and politics" by Nick Bryant demonstrates just how interchangeable the language of sports and politics have become. The article is littered with common sports phrases that are now commonly used to describe different political events. It declares that it is presidential campaign politics where sports jargon has become most prevalent. For example the article cites commentary about the anticipation of Obama's Democratic National Convention Speech. Bryant states, "this was how the veteran commentator Mark Shields framed Barack Obama's address (or, as he described the speech in a panel discussion on the American television network PBS, his at bat). 'He can't get by with a ground rule double tonight (when a batter is allowed to advance to second base when the ball has bounced out of the playing area). He has got to hit a home run.'" This section from Bryant's article showcases that competitive sports jargon can easily be slipped into reporting on politics. It also showcases that the news media is not simply reporting what is happening in the news, but they are also commenting. Commentators, who are often journalists or supposed experts of field, are often used in television news. Commentators are just another tool that can help to frame a story after the facts are presented to the audience.
So what is the meaning behind this framing? Why is it so important? In the frame analysis theory, framing is used to experience a primary reality. According to Goffman the primary reality refers "the real world in which people and events obey certain conventional and widely accepted rules" (Barran, 334). One could argue the framing of news stories with the use of competitive language or sports jargon creates an accepted culture of competition. Going along with this argument, just like in Healy's gun-control story where the details of gun-control measures don't matter as much as the battle of the measures, this framing reinforces the idea that winning, whatever one defines that as, is most important. Framing in the news media is a notable because it is what is used to help us understand news stories, as well as define our experiences in life.
Works Cited
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Pub., 2012. Print.
Bryant, Nick. "The Shared Language of Sport and Politics." BBC News. BBC, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2013.
Eggerton, John. "Pew: President Draws A Critical Crowd During Primaries." Broadcasting Cable RSS. NewBay Media, LLC, 23 Apr. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2013.
Healy, Jack. "Colorado Gun Control Proposals Face Fight." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Feb. 2013. Web. 09 Feb. 2013.
Stephanie Griffin
ReplyDeleteJennifer,
Your perspective on competitive framing was very intriguing. I certainly agree with you in which some aspects of news stories, like those of gun control and political campaigning, display a jargon similar that refers to two different sides. Something I would like to add to this idea is how the public is becoming more active with news more than ever before. According to the Pew Research Center study on “Understanding the participatory news consumer,” news is now becoming a social experience, through such entities like social media” (Purcell). In other words, people are now able to comment on news as well as report their own news to stations. In this sense, they could be affecting what news media are covering in their stories. We saw this evidently during last year’s presidential campaign, as many news networks were turning to Twitter during debates and speeches to discover what the people have been discussing on social media regarding the candidates. After making timeless comments such as “Binders Full of Women” and “Big Bird,” news stories were covering Mitt Romney’s downfalls the next day. Yet, news media can still set the agenda to many stories- as I will discuss later. The framing of stories and the language behind such can affect people’s reactions and opinions to a certain issue; furthermore, this could influence the news consumers to become participators and make valid opinions. Therefore, if you hear about a story regarding a presidential debate, the controversy or competition could lead to a discussion among people either on social media or in person- regardless; this type of competitive framing of stories encourages people to think about what they are hearing on the news.
As I mentioned earlier, the aspect of framing also relates to agenda setting of news media. According to Stanley Baran and Dennis Davis in their book, Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future, agenda setting refers to “the idea that media don’t tell people what to think, but what to think about” (Baran 293). The authors continue to say people are different, we hold different opinions, and may see the world differently (Baran 294). Could the framing of news come as a universal understanding amongst these different individuals? The answer may be uncertain; however, the type of stories reported and the framework of their language are important in today’s society where more of the public is becoming involved in the news process. As these news consumers are becoming news participators themselves, the future of framing in news stories may be affected by what the people will want to hear. As stated earlier, this was evident during the presidential debates last year as people were on social media during the events. This could in fact turn out to be what the majority of society feels is important, like “winning,” and what is worth talking about. Some may argue the competitive language of the framing is what may keep the news exciting and interesting to listen to; yet, others would just rather the news share the facts and have the public discuss any subjective sides to these real world events.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Pub., 2012. Print.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny Olmstead. "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer- How Internet and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience." Pew Research Center. N.p., 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.
Raquel Doering
ReplyDeleteJennifer,
I found your insight on framing very interesting. I had not considered framing to reinforce the concept of “winning” as most important. I had always associated framing with “expectations,” such as “stereotypes, attitudes, typifications schemes, and racial or ethnic bias,” as Baran and Davis explain in Mass Communication Theory (Baran 330). I agree that stories about topics such as gun control and politics do take on a competitive feel, although I would have discussed both topics in terms of the agenda-setting theory, which Baran and Davis define as “the idea that media do not tell people what to think, but what to think about” (293). Nonetheless, it was very refreshing to read an interpretation of framing slightly different from my own.
I think you bring up a very compelling point when you mention that the win-lose feel in journalism causes journalists to become commentators. According to Baran and Davis, framing theory challenges “the notion that news stories can or should be objective” (Baran 336). Framing theory is based on individuals’ previous experiences, creating expectations that are generally “resistant to changes” and “associated with…strong emotions” (330).
While the news industry strives for objectivity, I believe complete objectivity is impossible, especially in pieces about topics that people are extremely passionate about, such as gun control and politics. However, with the current culture of the participatory news consumer and the use of social media, there is room for opinion-based pieces, while still preserving objective, traditional news.
According to the Pew Research Center study, the “majority of Americans use multiple platforms to get news on a typical day, including national TV, local TV, the internet, local newspaper, radio, and national newspaper (Purcell 2). This is a vast array of platforms, which continues to expand when individuals use “social media like social networking sites and blogs” (2).
In my opinion, journalists should try to remain as objective as possible and steer away from opinion-suggestive language, such as competitive jargon, when writing for more traditional platforms, such as national TV, newspapers, etc. On the other hand, most social media sites thrive on the sharing of opinions. Thus, using objective, traditional news as a starting point for the basis of opinion-based pieces is the perfect balance.
Raquel Doering (continued)
DeleteIn my opinion, journalists should try to remain as objective as possible and steer away from opinion-suggestive language, such as competitive jargon, when writing for more traditional platforms, such as national TV, newspapers, etc. On the other hand, most social media sites thrive on the sharing of opinions. Thus, using objective, traditional news as a starting point for the basis of opinion-based pieces is the perfect balance.
Currently, social media sites allow users an array of participatory actions, including commenting, posting links, tagging and categorizing content, and contributing their own pieces (Purcell 44). Therefore, people want news organizations to share their news, and people are even becoming friends with the news organizations or the journalists themselves though social media sites to have direct access to news on sharing platforms (40). These sharing realms are the perfect opportunity for journalists and users to be able to express their opinions, especially about passionate topics. Having a realm for sharing opinions may actually assist in keeping traditional news forms objective.
Thus, I believe both audiences and journalists are affected by their expectations, as the framing theory suggests, and as a result, I do not think news can ever be completely objective, especially in regard to passionate topics, such as gun control and politics. However, with the advent of social media sites, such as social networking sites and blogs, a place has been created where opinion-based pieces are more acceptable. While journalists should always strive for objectivity in their mainstream, traditional pieces, journalists and users can exchange in opinion-based social sharing on social media sites.
Works Cited
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment,
and Future, 6th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012. Print.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny Olmstead.
"Understanding the Participatory News Consumer – How Internet and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience." Pew Research Center. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your thoughts on competitive framing, I agreed that the use of sports jargon creates an accepted culture of competition. One thing that I wanted to add is that the use of sports jargon in news stories is important to gain the attention of viewers. Like Stephanie mentioned in her response, the public is becoming more active with news thanks to social media like Twitter and Facebook where thoughts and opinions could be shared easily. Most people use these social media sites to not only share their opinions of the news, but also to get the news both at home on the computer, and on the go by using smart phones and tablets. According to the Newspaper Mulitplatform Usage study conducted for the NAA by Frank N. Magid Associates, 68% of people said smart phones make it easy to stay informed no matter where they go, 48% of people said smart phones are an easy format for sharing stories with others, and 39% said they use apps over a browser for online news access. Receiving news is becoming much more digital act in this day and age, as is the way news is presented. By using sports jargon in news stories and headlines, journalists seem to be more likely to get the attention of the majority of news readers who are getting their news on the go on their smart phones, and social media sites, rather than posting full length articles that require sitting down and paying attention to only the story at hand. In a way, reporting today’s news is now all about getting it out in the shortest and quickest way possible because everyone is concerned with multitasking and getting everything on the go.
It makes sense that sports jargon is used when reporting non-sports related news like the articles you mentioned about gun control and the presidential election. Just as Baran and Davis write in the book, Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future, hyperritualized representations are media content constructed to highlight only the most meaningful actions (Baran, p. 333). Baran and Davis explain this by saying how ads use the sex appeal of women to get men’s attention. It might not be to exactly that degree, but when journalists use sports jargon to describe a political or cultural story, they are using the words and phrases to capture the attention of the everyday person who wants to be caught up with the day’s events, but might care more for a lighter, easier to understand version of the news. Also, sports make up a huge part of American culture. It is something shared and understood by almost every person in the nation. By using the jargon that most of the country understands, journalists are speaking to a much wider audience than they might be if they did not use it in their stories. By using a jargon that everyone understands, they are giving us a new way to look at and understand the news, as well as making it easier for those of us that receive our news on the go on devices like smart phones and tablets. This shows how framing is changing the way we view and understand news and how it is defining our experiences in life.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Pub., 2012. Print. 12 Feb. 2013.
Magid Associates, Frank N. Newspaper Multiplatform Usage, Results from a study conducted for Newspaper Association of America. 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteI found your views on framing to be very interesting and also similar to mine. I also think many stories in the news frame stories by focusing on winners and losers. I feel no matter what the topic is, it seems everyone has to be on one side or another, and if you’re not then you don’t care about the news, which makes you a bad person or if you disagree with both sides then you are uneducated. I certainly agree that politics and gun control are perfect examples of stories framed focusing on winning or losing. Especially with the recent Sandy Hook Shooting, gun control has been a hot button topic in society, as it should be. This for example has many people who are either for gun control or against gun control, and you usually only hear the people who are very passionate either way.
I also agree and do think journalists get so wrapped up in these types of stories that they seem to be more like commentators than journalists. I understand it is there job to give us the stories, but I think they need to be more careful about what information they deliver to us and how they deliver it. Baran and Davis explain in Mass Communication Theory (Baran 293) that agenda setting is “the idea that media don’t tell people what to think, but what to think about”. Basically the media has the power to control society’s thoughts, which could have positive and negative effects. If the media has all of this power over what we think, then it is the journalist’s job to make sure they deliver the correct information to us. If put in the wrong hands some journalists have admitted, “we only give the people what they want” (Baran 295). What these journalists should be giving us is the facts. It is important the media remained unbiased when reporting the news and let people in society form their own opinions.
Baran and Davis stated, “the media tend to present one or two at most sides of an issue to the exclusion of others, which further encourages people to keep quiet and make it even tougher for the media to uncover and register that opposing viewpoint” (298). This is known as the “spiral of silence”, often when an issue comes about in the news today; many people feel they must quickly scramble to one side or the other. When this happens people often feel their opinions about a topic don’t matter, which isn’t true. Individuals need to realize their opinions about a topic don’t have to be solely shaped by what the media puts out there. The Pew Research Center put this into perspective.
Their studies have found “about 92% of Americans use multiple platforms to get news on a typical day” (Purcell 2). The study found that “37% of internet users have contributed to the creation of news, commented about it, or disseminated it via postings on social media sites like Facebook or Twitter” (Purcell 2). This is great news and further shows the stop to the “spiral of silence”. People feel confident to go online and post their opinions about the topics in the news. Purcell discussed how news on the Internet is a new way to engage socially with others (2). Purcell also said the two main reasons why are people becoming more interactive in voicing their viewpoints were through social media and smart phones (2). Hopefully with this technology, now more people in our society will feel comfortable expressing their opinions and not be afraid to make their own paths. I think it is important to look at what the media is saying about the news, but to also do your own research and think your own thoughts.
Works Cited
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory:
Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth
Pub., 2012. Print. 12 Feb. 2013.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny
Olmstead. "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer – How Internet
and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience." Pew
Research Center. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 12
Feb. 2013.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteCompetitive framing is something that has plagued our news sources for many years and you have pointed out great examples from the readings and beyond of how they are used for political reasons. I never really noticed how similar political jargon and sports jargon are to each other anymore. It really is astounding how politics has become more of a “winning” sport than an actual reflection of public opinion. The kind of coverage that we see of everyday politics is clearly something that is reflected in Baron’s explanation of agenda setting when discussing the 2008 election, where I think we saw more of this competitive framing than every before,
“Despite passage of campaign financing legislation seeking to limit the influence of money in politics, the presidential candidates raised and spent more money than ever.” (Baron 293)
When it came to debates and attack ads, there was more framing against candidates than ever before. I think we especially saw this with Sarah Palin. For someone who made much fewer public blunders than was put out, the Obama campaign and the media organization behind him were able to paint her as pretty much a stupid hillbilly woman will no concept of what the nation needed at the time. The liberal media as a second coming of JFK, a people’s president, though framed Obama. During the debates this sports jargon that you had mentioned before was especially prevalent.
In a society that is looking more and more for objectivity, where does framing really fit in our consumption of news? As Baron says, “Framing theory challenges a long accepted and cherished tenet of journalism-the notion that new stories can or should be objective.” (Baron 336) I think as new consumers, we are aware of the objectivity problem that we face, and because of this, we are turning away from traditional news sources and more to smaller venues that we think we can trust. As was reported by the Pew Research Center on their study on How internet and cell phone users have turned news into a social experience, they state “Some 46% of Americans say they get news from four to six media platforms on a typical day. Just 7% get their news from a single media platform on a typical day.” (Purcell 2) This shows how Americans are not solely trusting one news source anymore. They are going online and reading different opinions and articles to try and get a well-rounded view of the issue at hand, something that they cannot get from traditional media because of this framing theory. Consumers want to be able to come to their own conclusions and are more aware than ever that big new programs are framing stories to fit their own agendas. This is also why many Americans are even turning to “fake news” sources such as Jon Stewart to try and get an honest look at the news. With competitive framing at the stage it is at the moment, consumers will continue to turn to other mediums to get their information.
Works Cited:
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory:
Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth
Pub., 2012. Print. 12 Feb. 2013.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny
Olmstead. "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer – How Internet
and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience." Pew
Research Center. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 12
Feb. 2013.
Cody Fuller
ReplyDeleteJennifer,
Interesting take on framing and the way political journalism has gradually adopted this competitive nature. I myself tend not to watch much news or political coverage, but I do consume a lot of sports-related media and can see the resemblance you mentioned. Comparing two ideas or sides of an argument as those “battling” is certainly a way of hyping up political news and tagging an unnecessary title to make it sound more competitive, newsworthy, and serious.
So is this competitive approach to reporting politics simply just mirroring the competitive nature that is part of our society? I would argue that it has more to do with the nature of television networks focusing on entertainment value and ratings.
As news programs try their hardest to get ratings, I believe they’ve adopted this framing style of delivering news to draw in viewers and make political news as compelling as possible. Do you think Nancy Grace the most suitable host of a political TV show to give accurate and unbiased information? Of course not, but she brings a fiery, strongly-biased opinion and makes an entertaining debacle out of her show which people like to watch. Personalities like her, Bill O’Reilly, etc. have long been implementing this technique of framing politics as competitive sports, as it draws in a bigger audience for the entertainment value.
Journalist Scott London wrote an article entitled “How the Media Frames Political Issues” which discusses this phenomenon. London argues that news programs know that the audience will consume and believe whatever they are shown, and thus can get away with this framing technique. “Journalists may take us seriously as news consumers but generally ignore our wider role as citizens. As a rule, they do not encourage communication, strengthen the public dialogue, or facilitate the formulation of common decisions. In fact, they may do just the opposite by routinely framing news in objective and episodic formats. And even when the function of journalism is considered to be education, the public’s role is still likely to be conceived as passive” (scottlondon.com)
Framing is also very common in advertising, as brands constantly spend millions of dollars each year to try to convince us. Davis and Baran explain how advertisers capitalize on stimulating our senses and preconceived notions through subliminally attaching brands to certain emotions.
“Advertisers didn’t create sex-role stereotypes, but Goffman argued, they have homogenized how women are publicly depicted. Marketers routinely use powerful visual imagery to associate products with women who explicitly and implicitly signal their willingness to be playful sexual partners. There are many subtle and not-so-subtle messages in these ads. “Consume the product and get the girl” is one dominant message” (Baran/Davis, 334).
We see this in nearly every advertisement for beer, deodorant, cars, and other everyday products, which really don’t have much difference between them. However, advertisers have drilled it into our minds through this use of framing that each brand is significantly different and have unique functional benefits. This constant exploitation of the female sex-object frame has caused us to develop this subconscious sense of accepting it as being completely normal.
Works Cited
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Pub., 2012. Print.
London, Scott. ""How the Media Frames Political Issues" by Scott London." "How the Media Frames Political Issues" by Scott London. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
Ryan Malki
ReplyDeleteGood work Jennifer. Thought you did a good job in explaining competitive framing’s place in the media. I have never heard of framing but now that I am aware of it I’m sure I will pick up on when news media is utilizing its ability to consume the viewer. Framing is successful because people are naturally looking for some sort of order and structure in the stories, otherwise it would be to easy to lost their attention. By incorporating a common theme that frames all stories, no matter how different, the new media can easily structure all stories to maintain that sense of structure that everyone feels comfortable with.
The example you use that reinforces framing technique does a good job in portraying framing in action. I can think of lots of news stories where the details are pretty ambiguous. The key points of interest usually highlight the two different sides, who is representing them, what is on the line, and the issues they will be fighting over. The details are usually left out since the battle itself is more important than the purpose the battle is serving.
Baron mentions that framing techniques serve to “provide a systematic account of how we use expectations to make sense of everyday life stations and the people in them” (330). Since the average person is filled with expectations, it should be in the news media’s best interest to fulfill those expectations. If a particular news story were delivered with an entirely different framing technique than the viewer were used to, their expectations would not be fulfilled which can interfere with their “ability to consciously interpret new information available in the situation” (Baron, 330).
The article that explores the similar use of words and expressions for both sports and politics has an interesting approach to framing technique. It clearly shows just how the use of framing is being implemented in all facets of news deliverance to best capture the viewer’s attention and maintain it. Using sports lingo to describe a political event is just another means of implementing order and a pattern for the viewer to absorb the news piece more simply. It is interesting how the dynamics of competitive framing have increased due to Internet and cell phone users. The Pew Research Center conducted a study that found that 46% of Americans get their news from six media platforms on just a typical day, and only 7% were found to get their news from a single source. This should definitely increase the use of competitive framing techniques as different media platforms will be doing whatever necessary to capture the attention of their audience.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Pub., 2012. Print. 12 Feb. 2013.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny Olmstead. "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer – How Internet and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience." Pew Research Center. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteYou have posed an interesting and compelling take on competitive framing. Up until reading your post, I had never challenged myself to think critically about this issue of framing, even though it has become so naturally excepted into our society today.
Like your post and some of the other comments suggest, I too believe we live in a news driven world that provokes citizens to be either winners or losers, nowhere in-between. They must take a side. You are either right, or you are wrong. This provokes people to discuss their opinions loud and proud, including journalists. I think it is a struggle for many journalists to remain unbiased and quiet while others get to passionately discuss their views on such controversial topics like, gun control and politics, as you have described. As Baran and Davis note, the framing theory challenges a long accepted tenet of journalism, “that news stories can or should be objective” (336). Personally, I believe journalists should strive to be as objective and open-minded as possible when reporting the news. Baran and Davis explain in their book, that agenda- setting, which is the idea that media doesn’t tell people what to think, but what to think about, is a theory that has been used by the media for decades (293).
Baran and Davis went on to explain the interpretation of agenda-setting by two researchers, Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald Shaw. They once stated, “In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping reality. Readers learn not only about a given issue, but how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position” (294). When journalists do spend more time on one issue more than others, it does heavily impact the opinion of the public.
Also, as you suggested, when journalists use sports like jargon, this too heavily impacts the viewers opinions. If a journalist seems extremely interested in a story and gets heated and starts describing a serious event, such as a political debate, as a sports game, they automatically seem more like a sports commentator than a journalist, as the article, “The shared language of Sport and Politics” by Nick Bryant suggests.
In sum, it is a crucial part in today’s media, for journalists to try and put an end to this framing epidemic and stop trying to get the public to believe what they want them to believe, and just report the news.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Pub., 2012. Print.
Bryant, Nick. "The Shared Language of Sport and Politics." BBC News. BBC, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2013.
Rebecca Mino-Altherr
ReplyDeleteJennifer,
I agree that competitive framing is an important issue to address in today’s society and I found it interesting that you chose to focus on media’s tendency to emphasize winners and losers. Competitive framing, as well as framing in a broader context, can shape a consumer’s view of a particular topic. Framing can insert a journalist’s or a media corporation’s bias into the minds of the consumer without the consumer realizing. Consumers simply trust media conglomerates such as Fox News or CNN and therefore take their news as they read, see or hear it without questioning the way in which it is delivered.
According to the Pew Research Center’s study “Understanding the participatory news consumer,” TV is still the number one platform for receiving news with 78% of Americans saying they get their news from a local TV station. (Purcell 3) TV is one platform that is guilty of framing, especially in covering events like presidential and congressional elections as you pointed out. In addition to focusing on winners and losers, TV stations can show their bias by giving either a Republican or Democratic candidate more airtime, depending on if they are a liberal station or not. This not only focuses on a winner or loser but often helps influence the widely accepted outcome of the debate. Also during televised debates the station may chose to air clips of their un-favored candidate looking stressed and uneasy, even though that may not reflect what he or she looked like for a majority of the debate.
As Baron and Davis explain in Mass Communication Theory, the media can tell us “what to think about” and also “how to think about” that subject. (Baran 297) Consumers are exposed to the range of topics they absorb from watching, reading and hearing the news - therefore what they don’t see on the news, they do not think about. But framing comes into play when the consumers are exposed to news in a certain format, therefore influencing them how to think about it. Seeing a potential president looking flustered during a national debate on TV may cause viewers to rethink their impression of that candidate. Similarly a TV station will show the candidate they want to win looking empowered which they can do by holding the camera pointed up at that candidate, causing him or her to appear larger on screen. News stations use these tactics although their viewers often do not realize or think about it.
The Pew Research Center’s study also found that “News consumption is a socially-engaging and socially-driven activity.” This finding can also further prove framing’s effect on media consumption. When users comment on articles, whether it is on Facebook or Twitter they often give their opinion of the article - therefore telling their followers what to think about before they even begin reading. According to Davis and Baran, framing is based on “the assumption that subtle changes in the wording of the description of a situation might affect how audience members interpret this situation.” (Baran 297). Many consumers of news are critical readers and will point out certain wordings in articles. Angry commenters on blogs will even point out how the journalist covering a particular story was bias in his or her reporting and blatantly point out the act of framing.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Pub., 2012. Print.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny
Olmstead. "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer – How Internet
and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience." Pew
Research Center. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 12
Feb. 2013.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteI found your views on framing to be very insightful and unlike any opinion I have heard on the topic of competitive framing. You gave me new perspective and a lot of interesting points to ponder.
In particular I was interested to read your view of the winners and losers within the media’s framed stories. I had never thought of those individuals within a story or news coverage to be winning or losing but I suppose it is the perfect way to describe them. In life you are either winning or losing in everything you do and this definitely continues into the news media world. The most recent example I can think of would be the incarceration of a 7-year-old boy named Wilson Reyes in the Bronx, New York. The young boy was accused of stealing someone’s lunch money after which he got into a fight with another student at school. He was held in prison without parental consent and his parents are now suing the state for $250 million. Depending on how a news source reports this story it could make Wilson sound like the victim or an innocent little boy. In conclusion the media has huge influence in how we view and perceive stories and therefore decides the winner and loser for us.
You mention, “Healy's article reinforces the idea that the fight over the measures are more important than the actual measures themselves” with which I somewhat agree. I believe that the media often showcases the fight more than the actual measure but it needs to be the opposite. Often we focus on the actions occurring around us rather than addressing the main problem or issue at hand. For instance the issue of gun control, as you mention, is a hot debate topic in the media after the Sandy Hook Shooting. Before the school shooting no one seemed to care that innocent men and women are shot in local shootings in New Haven. The main issue of gun control just began to gain national attention after the shooting. It should not take the occurrence of such a tragic event to trigger a ‘fight’ over gun control policy. The framing of stories such as the Sandy Hook Shooting and other shootings should focus on the general issue or ‘fight’ at hand in addition to properly outline the story and course of events.
I had never considered commentator to be a tool to help frame a story after the facts are presented to the audience as you discussed. Commentator in sports and even in movies can be very influential in framing the game or movie for the viewers. Similar to those who view media articles moviegoers will watch the movie then form their opinion of the film at the end. Both media consumers and moviegoers are subject to the framing which media professionals or movie critics subject their audience to. For instance I will not see a movie if it got a bad rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that framing the news is often an act which we take part in as avid users of social media. The Pew Research Center reports that, “Some 37% of Internet users have contributed to the creation of news, commentary about it, or dissemination of news via social media. They have done at least one of the following: commenting on a news story (25%); posting a link on a social networking site (17%); tagging content (11%), creating their own original news material or opinion piece (9%), or Tweeting about news (3%)”. Considering these percentages I believe that just as the media frames the stories we view on a daily basis, we influence the media and our social media networks with our opinionated postings and Tweets.
News media seeks to affect its audience by using their expectations and twisting their views in some ways.
This technique, framing, is visible not only in the news but in many facets of daily life. Framing is also viewed as incorporating the winners and losers of a particular story or even an individual activity, which we may contribute to as social media users. Framing is around us at all times whether we are aware of it or not but it is up to the us, the media consumer to let framing change our viewpoint and perspective of the news which we consume.
Works Cited
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment,
and Future, 6th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012. Print.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny Olmstead.
"Understanding the Participatory News Consumer – How Internet and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience." Pew Research Center. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
DJ Mahoney
ReplyDeleteJenn-
I really found your perspective to be extremely interesting; after reading it, I found myself reflecting on how prevalent framing is in today’s news. The concept of competition through the use of carefully selecting the words to say, the images to show, and the sources to quote can sway audiences away from the actual news content and become enveloped in a biased portrayal, created by the media. You stated that framing usually occurs with campaigns and issues where there are two distinct viewpoints. I agree completely with this; I feel that it’s because individuals feel so strongly about a certain cause that they’re willing to step off the fence and choose a position to side with. I also feel that it tends to become more prominent when people experience a shared interest and create a larger and stronger bond.
A question that I started to ponder after reading your post was: Do political parties or those competing to be “the winner” become reactive to the media’s frame on them? An example that came to mind was the 2008 presidential election. There was a lot of positive buzz surrounding Barack Obama and his effect on the younger generation of voters. The weekend before Election Day, NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” featured Republican candidate John McCain in several skits. The one that stuck out to me the most was a skit where comedienne, Tina Fey was impersonating Sarah Palin and when McCain spoke, Fey held up t-shirts with “Palin 2016” written across the chest. In my opinion, it was SNL’s way of saying that there was no way McCain would win the race and become president. I wonder if his campaign manager had any objections to this or felt similarly to the show’s writers and therefore, did not plan for anything to combat the skit and try to revive his candidate’s image.
I think another important aspect of framing is the timing of the coverage. On the topic of gun control, it is something that has been controversial for many years now but really came to the forefront after the massacre that happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Usually, when a personal account is used as footage or a source, it resonates more with the larger audience. To those citizens who are not very knowledgeable on this topic, the only information they are drawing from is the news coverage that showed numerous innocent lives that were taken by the misusage of someone’s personal firearm.
I’d also like to touch on the relationship between the language used in sports and in politics. Some may say that media outlets are using this terminology to make the average watcher more invested in the content. People are usually turned off by politics and do not like discussing it with others. This new style of reporting and news coverage could lead to more citizens regularly being updated and informed with their local, state, and federal government. I’ve started to question though if people are beginning to devalue the information being presented to them. Are the audience members in the same mindset watching a Presidential debate as they are watching an MLB playoff game? If so, the use of framing and specific jargon may hinder many people to think on their own.
Brandon Schindler
ReplyDeleteJennifer,
To start out I really like the ideas you have about framing. You make a very good point about the idea of gun control. For someone who is not glued to social media sights and the news most of the day, this topic especially, has become one that I have heard many different people. When looking at a subject like this, Baran and Davis talk about the idea of agenda-setting in their book Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future. Agenda-setting is “the idea that media don’t tell people what to think, but what to think about” (Baran and Davis 293). Agenda setting gives people a starting point for the direction that media seems to be going today. In the reading titled “Understanding the participatory news consumer,” it states that “ people’s experience of news, especially on the internet, is becoming a shared social experience as people swap links in emails, post news stories on their social networking site feeds, highlight news stories in their Tweets, and haggle over the meaning of events in discussion threads” (Purcell 2). In my most recent ventures on Twitter and Face book, I really have not seen anything about gun control. For example, tonight, the State of the Union Address is on. The NBC page on Twitter had many Tweets and Re-Tweets on this event alone. To tie this back to the idea of framing, and the quote I just shared about the media being social, the NBC page on Twitter was filled with many different people’s opinions, which seems like this whole idea could be framing in and itself.
Another hot topic in the past weeks was the Super Bowl. As I’m sure many are aware it was a frenzy for the media. Not just on the level of the news station reporting on it, but the social media as well. In Baran and Davis’s book, Erving Goffman talks about frame analysis. Frame analysis is “Goffman’s idea about how people use expectations to make sense of everyday life” (Baran and Davis 330). Under this idea he makes a very good point about experience. “In other words, our experience of the world can be constantly shifting, sometimes in major ways, yet we may not notice these shifts” (Baran and Davis 331). The best way I think to put it is the Super Bowl is no longer just about football. One of the big hypes that I heard about was the commercials. When looking at the commercials, it seemed as the media turned them into a competition. The morning after the Super Bowl, the first thing I remember seeing on the news was a segment about the commercials, and how there were so many Tweets about each one of them. To bring this back to the point that I made about shifting experience and framing, I remember the days when social media was not involved in the Super Bowl. For an event such as the Super Bowl it seems that social media is now a norm. In summary that shift that is being described, is the use of social media. From my viewpoint it seems like that shift into social media happened slowly, but I feel it became so widespread because it was a norm.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory:
Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth
Pub., 2012. Print.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny
Olmstead. "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer – How Internet
and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience." Pew
Research Center. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 12
Feb. 2013.
Jenn-
ReplyDeleteI found your point of view of framing to be very interesting and informative. I have been noticing the increase in “sports jargon” on the news and further more the campaign trails. I believe this speaks to the way the news is setup or “framed” and to the ideals and personalities of the people in this country. Many things that we look at now a day have been turned into serious competitions. The news is the best example of this because of the wide variety of topics that they report on. When looking at these topics we can usually find a common point, that usually being the framing.
A crucial part of “framing” a story is the time in which it is happening, are there any other events that are pushing the topic in one direction. Gun control is a good example of this. We have seen many horrific stories of recent in the news about gun violence. The combination of these stories and way the media frames the news gives the viewers a certain outlook on what is going on. Gun control has been argued over for years but is gaining a lot of momentum with the Aurora and Sandy hook shootings. These shooting are the main drive behind gun control today. We mainly here about the victims and how things could have been avoided on the news, and how this is going to lead to stricter gun laws.
Sports talk in politics was another great point you brought up. I think it makes a lot of sense that we mesh these two events together with the speech we use to describe. A political event is usually referred to as a race. In a race there are winners and losers. I think its up to the citizens to take what they hear and read and subject it to more research on a personal level. This takes out the framing by the reporters and allows the viewers to see the race for what it actually is. Removing the frames or guidelines in which a story is written is the real way to know what is actually being reported.
Quinn Kolbe
ReplyDeleteHi Jenn,
I thought that your ideas on framing were very insightful. I knew that the media used framing to shape their ideas about a particular side of a story, however, I never thought of it as trying to focus on winners and losers. But, that does make sense, especially when it comes to campaigns or controversial issues like gun control.
Journalists vow to be as objective as possible when reporting a story, but that reporter has an opinion on the topic that he or she is covering so, reporting objectively never actually occurs. According to Baran and Davis, framing theory challenges “the notion that news stories can or should be objective” (Baran 336)
The issue with framing is that if the news consumer is only reading one side of an issue, they could be swayed into thinking that the views a reporter has matches their own. The key is read all sides of an issue, so that one can then form their own opinion without the bias of a reporter. It is good to know that Americans are doing just that. According to the Pew Research Center study, the “majority of Americans use multiple platforms to get news on a typical day, including national TV, local TV, the internet, local newspaper, radio, and national newspaper (Purcell 2).
When you spoke of frame analysis theory and the use of competitive language or sports jargon, I immediately thought of the idea of horse-race journalism that often occurs in election season. Horse race journalism is similar to your idea of framing in that reporters focus a story of a campaign on who won and who lost. For example, after each presidential debate, the main focus was not the topics that were debated, but rather who viewers thought had “won” or “lost” the debate, as if it was a basketball game.
I agree that we live in a very competitive culture where a story might get across better to the public if it framed in such a manner that we are used to seeing stories covered, like sports stories. Full. Though, I do worry that if stories are being framed in a way that we can better perceive them, we may be missing out on getting a sense of the entire issue. Not every issue has winners and losers, so framing a story as such could have the potential to take away from the subject at hand and confuse the reader.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Pub., 2012. Print.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny Olmstead. "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer – How Internet and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience." Pew Research Center. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
After reading your post I agree completely with the idea that our news media has heightened the importance of "winning" a battle as opposed to the significance of the battle being fought. However, I find myself questioning why our media is so focused on a win/lose format. Maybe it is simply because media conglomarates were fishing for consumers and this is what worked – but I can’t help but wonder if we did this to ourselves. After your original argument, which rooted itself deeply in political examples, I wondered if politics corrupted media or if media corrupted politics. Meaning, was politics a win-lose game that could only be reported on as such or did the media take political battles, strip them of their significance and report only on the winners and losers? Then I thought about it some more in the context of the class readings and I can’t help but be convinced that as consumers we did this to ourselves. Not only are we now responsible for the ratings of media but in this age of consumer technology we also take part in creating the news. If this is true can we really blame or be angry at news outlets for this “culture of competitiveness”?
ReplyDeleteIn the article, Understanding the Participatory News Consumer – How Internet and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience. The authors suggest that, “The public is clearly part of the news process now. Participation comes more through sharing than through contributing news themselves.” If the public is a part of the news process then how can we lay all of the blame on news conglomerates? We are becoming the criminals while simultaneously attempting to play the victim card. In this new age of participation consumers have the unique ability to shape the news. We tell networks what we want to see and hear and then advance those headlines and inflate the news to unsustainable proportions. No wonder the news is selling us this jargon – we buy it. Additionally I think it is important to look at the circumstances that headlines are copied and pasted. In our new Twitter platform you have 140 characters to say what you need to say – think about what reads more dramatically. Of course you want the catchiest, juiciest, most captivating post – you only have 140 characters to prompt someone to open your article. It would be easy to say to keep hard hitting news off Twitter but as Kenny Olmstead points out in his article, Digital: News Gains Audience but Loses Ground in Chase for Revenue “Social media, nevertheless, have become a part of the digital fabric and many news leaders recognize it as an increasingly critical tool in gaining new digital readers and building a loyal, highly engaged audience.”
News outlets need social media to survive but between the nature of the new media platforms and the consumer participation headlines need to be seductive and unforgiving. I don’t think it is fair to blame networks for this new culture of competitiveness. We are simply reaping what we sew.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny Olmstead. "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer – How Internet and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience." Pew Research Center. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
Olmstead, Kenny, Mitchell , Amy Rosenstie, Tom, “Digital: News Gains Audience but Loses Ground in Chase for Revenue “Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism
Alanna Lawrence
ReplyDeleteDear Jennifer,
As mentioned above I also agree with everyone else that you really highlighted the concept and topic of media framing. Your perspective on media framing really gave me a better understanding of what it really is. It made me think how the news can be construed and swayed from the actual event that took place. Basically in every news story, depending on the station/channel they have their own representation and idea of how they want to portray the story. It could be the same exact event but depending on the station/channel the story will have a different twist trying to lure their viewers in. Framing itself brings up a lot of controversies within the media. Framing is a way to help simplify what’s going on for the viewers to understand. The number one problem with media framing is that it can be bias; it can persuade viewers to think one particular way about a certain issue or event that is happening.
That brings me back to your topic on gun violence, agreeing with DJ Mahoney, the issue of gun violence has always been around. But just recently we have faced some horrific events that really brought the attention back to the communities’ safety and reduction of guns. With the event of Sandy Hook it really shocked viewers and the topic of guns became popular all over again. This event itself was construed into multiple stores. Every station had their own perspective of the story, framing it to their likings. I don’t know how many times I heard something different about this event. Some stations say he was mentally ill, some blame his mother for his behavior and the stories just go on and on. I believe this was a way these stations framed the story to lure in certain viewers. Just this one event that happened there were so many stories that went with it.
Sometimes I feel like people don’t even care for facts anymore in news stories. They just believe whatever they hear and for the most part certain things aren’t accurate. It is though framing shapes the viewers into what they should and only know. Like I said before there are a lot of controversies with this topic but it can also be beneficial to the public eye. It helps draw in the attention of viewers whether the story is accurate or not. We can benefit by learning multiple sides of a story on how it is displayed with images, quotes and footage.
Also I liked how you mentioned the idea of winners and losers in the concept of media framing. As a viewer myself, I always like to see competition between opposing sides, whether it’s a game, event or an actual news story. I find this technique to be widely used in all aspects, even the most recent events there is always something the media will portray against something else. For Example with the Super Bowl, there were so many comparisons between Beyonce’s performance to the commercial advertisements that were being displayed. It was as if the game itself was the loser and the performances and advertisements were the winners. Once the news aired the following day after the game they mainly focused on the advertisements and the performance of Beyonce as if the game was nothing. Media itself made these events all competition with each other. The story was framed that viewers took more of an interest in the advertisements and performance than the actual game.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Pub., 2012. Print.
ReplyDeleteJenn,
ReplyDeleteYour approach to the concept of framing was intriguing and offers several points for discourse. The idea of framing used to support the winning and losing argumentative sides of news reporting is evident all over the media. You pointed out how especially in politics we see the bias reporting and opposing opinions especially in politics. I agree with you completely. News attempts to make one candidate come out as a winner and the other a loser. It is all based on how the information is set up and presented rather than the facts of the candidates. I also agree that this “horserace” coverage strategy creates a focus on polls and winners and losers rather than the points and issues in the campaign. This agenda-setting of the media creates this divide of good and bad and the need to determine who comes out on top.
I’d like to add however, that the media may set issues up with winners and losers but it is because society best responds best to competitiveness. In the reading “Understanding the Participatory News Consumer” he highlights that society has now become interactive with the news by means of the internet. People are now able to comment and weigh in on topics which can cause them to take sides of an argument. The reading notes, “News consumption is a socially-engaging and socially-driven activity, especially online. The public is clearly part of the news process now. Participation comes more through sharing than through contributing news themselves,” (Purcell, 4). News being passed through social media sites allows conversation and competitiveness to begin. News outlets will set an agenda, telling people what to think about (Baran, 293), and then social media is used as an arena for argument and discussion. Social media essentially has changed the way we consume and interact with news. Baran notes in the text Mass Communication Theory that framing theory challenges the idea that journalists should be objective but instead “it implies that journalism’s role should be to provide a forum in which ideas about the social world are routinely presented and debated,” (Baran, 336). This supports your point you made of journalists creating winners and losers. Creating opposing sides allows debate to begin which is not only informative, it is also entertaining. Additionally audiences now being able to interact through new media gives more vessels and for the discourse to be among society and to only be mediated by news outlets.
Baran also highlights the effects of framing on news audiences by mentioning that a consistent single frame can have a different affect of learning of coverage rather than a variation (Baran, 338). A consistent frame influences how a viewer makes sense of events. For instance, viewers who watch liberal news that frames war in a negative light may see the recent gun control differently from those who watch more consistently conservative news. This is because the events are framed in different ways and so consume the news in opposing ways. Jenn, the article you mentioned about gun control supports this point. Using certain language aids in framing the news and creating opposing competing sides.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Pub., 2012. Print.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny Olmstead. "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer – How Internet and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience." Pew Research Center. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.