This week's readings discuss the concept of framing: How news information is presented or "framed"? The following link summarizes the concept:
http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/Framing.doc/
In "McQuail's Mass Communication Theory" McQuail exemplifies the framing concept by relating two similar events portrayed, by US reporting, very differently (Page 379). Here are some more recent examples of the way media have framed news information:
First, Media Education Foundation (MEF) did a report labeled, "Beyond the Frame: Alternative Views on the September 11th Atrocities." MEF concerns itself with the voices and viewpoints that were not represented in the mainstream media following September 11th.
http://www.mediaed.org/news/articles/btf
Second, George Lakeoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics, is interviewed about the current state of politics.
The first article discusses the usage of language conservatives use that dominate politics and the media.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
Notice how he defines framing and shows modern examples such as "tax relief."
A second interview with him, one year later, finds Lakeoff further involved in his research and examining new lingo, "war on terror" and "liberal elites." He has more critique on framing and strategies for progressives.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml
These are just a few examples of the framing concept in practice and prevalent in our society today. It is clear that it is a difficult task for the media to be unbiased but where do we draw the line between an over-framed media and a full fledged political agenda? Can we blame the current situation in the Middle East on the way the media framed the attacks and aftermath of September 11th? Should much of the success the conservative party has had in the past decade be credited to the way they have framed themselves and actions and language? If so, would the recent change in a democratic controlled senate be the result of a better framed democratic party or a faulting conservative one?
6 comments:
Tia said...
It’s the job of the media to relate “newsworthy” information to the public. We can only hope that this information comes from an unbiased point of view. Journalist should in no way include their opinions when reporting to the public, but facts are facts and everything else is simply their opinion or view on a particular topic. As for the events in the Middle East being blamed on the media, I would have to disagree. I do believe they did a bad job in over exposing information to the public, but they should not be held responsible. I feel society is never satisfied at times. We blame the media for not relating enough information; we then turn right around and blame them for exposing too much information. I do not always agree with the way the media deals with certain situations, but they are our source of information. Without the media, we would be clueless on many events and occurrences in our daily lives. The government is not going to reach to our citizens and keep us informed on anything occurring in society if it does not shine a positive light on their actions.
After reading Tia’s comment, I completely agree. The job of the media as a whole is to present news in an un-bias fashion. However, news can be presented in many different ways. In today’s society, there are always agendas set behind what stories are covered and how those stories are presented to the public. For example, stations like Fox News are known for being heavily “influenced” by the Republican Party.
As a media consumer, it is also your responsibility to be at least some-what aware of these agendas. If you are OK with the agenda being set, then there should be no issues of what news is being presented to you. However, if as a consumer, you are not satisfied, I find it to be your job to research other presentations of the news to form your own personal view of the story. In today’s society it is not (as) acceptable to simply agree with and believe one story you are given.
We all want to believe that the news is presented in an 'unbiased' manner, however we all know that clearly with examples such as Fox and CNN these stations are providing us with certain ideas and beliefs. I agree with Tia that "society is never satisfied" if we are given too much information we are upset but when there is information not mentioned and later found we are upset.
We have to realize that without the news we wouldn't have any insight of what was going on, but with the information given (however provided) we need to keep in mind that it is possible we are not given the entire story.
Unbiased or completely bias, the general public will never be satisfied with the amount, and type of news that is given to us.
After reading the 9/11 article about MEF, it was nice that they honored the wishes of the public and interviewed more than just the 'experts', but what if they hadn't interviewed the experts at all? This country would have been up in arms about the coverage 9/11 was receiving. I’m a believer that no matter what the news corporations do, the American public will never be satisfied.
Although, I do believe that it is the duty of the news industry to produce an unbiased news cast for us, it is unfortunately not going to happen. There is way too much politics involved.
To answer the first question on whether or not we can blame the current situation in the Middle East on the way the media framed the attacks and the aftermath of 9/11, I would have to say no. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought the harsh reality to the American public that terrorism has spread to American soil. We had never seen such destruction as a result of terrorism in our own country, and as a result we were left awestruck - and mad. In true American fashion the initial feelings after 9/11 were one of loss and sympathy for the people that died and their friends and families, but also for revenge. The images of 9/11 were so powerfull that they had to be shown over and over again. And as we mourned as a country, we also grew mad and wanted answers. With this being said, you could argue that the media was responding the the public's need for revenge and answers by focusing their interviews on terrorism experts, military officers and government officials. We were dealing with a real life crime story, and as a result the media focused on the hard facts and stayed away from the theory and interviewing sources such as intellects, progressive academics, civil rights leaders, etc. I agree that this was the right approach for the coverage immediately following the attacks. The public tuned in because they wanted to know the facts and get the latest information, and I don't think they were ready to discuss theory so soon. Not to dis-credit the viewpoints of academics and theorists, but military and terrorism experts talking about the attacks covered with b-roll of compelling images makes better television then a few people sitting around and discussing theory.
I would agree that the conservative party benefited from the framing of this story, but I don't think you can blame them. The Democrats would have done the same thing. But, instead, they have used the media to frame the conservatives with partial blame for not paying more attention to the warnings prior to the attacks.
This George Lakoff guy should be president. He clearly pinpoints what the problem is with conservative framing, and provides examples to further his arguments. He gives specifics of how conservatives have focused on language to sway the public, from bits of speeches to actual facts. What he fails to acknowledge though is that liberals and Democrats are guilty of framing too. Framing can be conscious and subconscious, often on the latter. The problem is that we're unaware of our own framing. Granted, current conservatives are using it to their advantage as Lakoff discusses, but he makes it seem as if libs and Dems are completely innocent. I personally liked the description of conservatives' "strict father" model, because it's incredibly true. In the past year I've gotten yelled at by conservatives for being addicted to oil, participating in global warming, and being anti-patriotic because I don't support the war. I was totally unaware I was guilty of these crimes, but thats how the conservative think tanks work. Lakoff is right when he analyzes Arnold Schwarzenegger's characters as Mr. Discipline who will use force and authority to re-iterate the way things need to be done, yet he also mentions how Schwarzenegger doesn't need to actually SAY anything to do so. Isn't talking what the article is about?
Post a Comment