Framing in the Media

LancasterRed

Mad Scientist
Patron
In the social sciences, framing comprises a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies, organize, perceive, and communicate about reality.

...

Framing involves social construction of a social phenomenon – by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. Participation in a language community necessarily influences an individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Politically, the language communities of advertising, religion, and mass media are highly contested, whereas framing in less-sharply defended language communities might evolve imperceptibly and organically over cultural time frames, with fewer overt modes of disputation.
Framing makes up a key part of media strategy, to subliminally convey messages to make people believe or feel the desired way that the media wants them to. One such example includes today's racist front page from the Daily Mail. You might wonder how it's racist initially but that's okay, I'm here to help. Through the comments you will discover that the original stock photo was altered, including a change to the door, to remove the people on the left. I can't particularly say I'm surprised given the source.


So I wanted to have an adult discussion about how framing works in the media, how it impacts our lives and how the clarity and effects of framing can be conveyed to the average tabloid reader and those who do not apply critical thinking as to why the media wish to push a particular narrative, as well as the impacts of this.

You will also recall the BBC editing a photo of Jeremy Corbyn to associate him with communism (despite leading a democratic socialist party, swiftly dispelling the whole argument) which is also a different type of framing.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
Framing makes up a key part of media strategy, to subliminally convey messages to make people believe or feel the desired way that the media wants them to. One such example includes today's racist front page from the Daily Mail. You might wonder how it's racist initially but that's okay, I'm here to help. Through the comments you will discover that the original stock photo was altered, including a change to the door, to remove the people on the left. I can't particularly say I'm surprised given the source.


So I wanted to have an adult discussion about how framing works in the media, how it impacts our lives and how the clarity and effects of framing can be conveyed to the average tabloid reader and those who do not apply critical thinking as to why the media wish to push a particular narrative, as well as the impacts of this.

You will also recall the BBC editing a photo of Jeremy Corbyn to associate him with communism (despite leading a democratic socialist party, swiftly dispelling the whole argument) which is also a different type of framing.
You say you’re here to help - so - help me spot what the DM did wrong there. If you’re just complaining that the children on the periphery have been cropped off then, unless I’m failing an observation test, you’ve picked a dreadful example to illustrate what is a very good discussion point!
 
OP
LancasterRed

LancasterRed

Mad Scientist
Patron
You say you’re here to help - so - help me spot what the DM did wrong there. If you’re just complaining that the children on the periphery have been cropped off then, unless I’m failing an observation test, you’ve picked a dreadful example to illustrate what is a very good discussion point!
 
OP
LancasterRed

LancasterRed

Mad Scientist
Patron
Simple question- are you concerned that the peripheral kids cropped off included two black children? If so, it’s an invalid example
Not invalid in terms of the definition of framing. Usually it could be brushed off as either an accident or necessary but when it's the Daily Mail who have history it becomes a very valid example.

If you disagree with it there's a more critical review on Fox News here.
 

Sepp Blatter

Goat Molester
Patron
Framing isn't necessarily a bad thing - indeed, sometimes it is part and parcel of communication.

As an example, if I were writing advertising copy about smart phones, I would frame it completely differently for different audiences. So, for teenagers, I would frame it as cool, good for gaming, a must have item etc. For older, professional audiences, I would frame the practical side, the price, or its use for work. The same product with different frames.

You are right, though, in that it can be misused - as an example, with the austerity after the crash, politicians and most media framed it as 'cuts are essential.' Within this frame, centre-left argued for a lower level of cuts than conservative parties, but few argued that cuts were not needed or that governments should stimulate the economy. Anyone proposing those was sidelined as a fringe view.

Then, there is the language you use - is a young Palestinian throwing rocks at Israel soldiers a terrorist or a protester? Structural reforms instead of public spending cuts; liberalising markets vs. making it easier to hire and fire; War on Terror/liberation instead of occupation.

The name you pick shapes the entire debate. To be fair, you could consider the Daily Mail one of the most accurate media sources going, because it is very consistent in how it frames things and breaks out the dogwhistle to suit an editorial line! Many media sources are much more subtle.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
Not invalid in terms of the definition of framing. Usually it could be brushed off as either an accident or necessary but when it's the Daily Mail who have history it becomes a very valid example.

If you disagree with it there's a more critical review on Fox News here.
I just saw raef posting the full pic on the other thread. I think this is crazy. This is such a poor example to use. Anybody can see that the photo woks on a front page as a close-up and simply woul NOT work with a wide shot

All you do is preach to those eager to be angry and you alienate people in the middle.

Screaming at every perceived injustice does not work. Especially when some “injustices” are tenuous at best.
Choose a better example. The DM is full of them. Quality, not quantity. I’m hoping Starmer will lead the way on that.
 
In fairness the Mail often has BAME on their front page.

So you are having a go at the Mail for pointing out that we should not be letting in illegal immigrants yet you are also happy to point out on other threads that we should not be letting folk fly into the country legally because of the Covid threat 🤔
 
OP
LancasterRed

LancasterRed

Mad Scientist
Patron
So you are having a go at the Mail for pointing out that we should not be letting in illegal immigrants yet you are also happy to point out on other threads that we should not be letting folk fly into the country legally because of the Covid threat 🤔
I'll answer this one quickly:

Immigration to the country outside of the current climate relating to the pandemic is wholly unrelated to any form of entering the country inside the current climate, and different strategies need to be in place.
 

jakehake

Preachs PA
Staff member
Patron
I just saw raef posting the full pic on the other thread. I think this is crazy. This is such a poor example to use. Anybody can see that the photo woks on a front page as a close-up and simply woul NOT work with a wide shot

All you do is preach to those eager to be angry and you alienate people in the middle.

Screaming at every perceived injustice does not work. Especially when some “injustices” are tenuous at best.
Choose a better example. The DM is full of them. Quality, not quantity. I’m hoping Starmer will lead the way on that.
It wouldn’t work as a wide shot as the children on the periphery would merge into the text.

They could have made the peripheral girls face and hair grey like they did with the child’s jumper but it’s unfortunate there is only one stock photograph of a teacher available to newspapers
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
Just listen to yourself jake. There is absolutely no issue with them cropping that photo. You’ve said so yourself. But you continue to demonise them by implying that they should have searched for a different photo so that they didn’t have to crop some black children off. This should be given a gold star on the Political Correctness thread o_O
 
OP
LancasterRed

LancasterRed

Mad Scientist
Patron

Here's an example of what's happened today in The Times. If you just scroll through and glance you'll get a completely different message to if you stop and read the article.
 
Top