Media Framing
So, if we accept the premise that media are influential in setting the public agenda, we also must understand the various devices media use to report—or more specifically, frame—the news. Media framing analysis goes beyond identifying which issues (and aspects of issues) are important to think about, and explores the parameters of the discussion itself—the words, symbols, overall content, and tone used to frame the topic. When compared to agenda setting, framing includes “a broader range of cognitive processes—such as moral evaluations, causal reasoning, appeals to principles, and recommendations for treatment of problems." In other words, if agenda setting tells us what issues and topics to think about, and second-level agenda setting suggests which aspects of those topics are more/less salient, media framing takes it another step by exploring “how” specific devices can shape our understanding of the topic itself.
Framing’s roots go back, in part, to Erving Goffman’s (1974) exploration of how we organize our own experience. He argued that we experience life—both in terms of how we receive and interpret, and how we engage—through frames. What we consider “reality” depends on the frames we employ to approach, analyze, and understand the world around us. Accordingly, given the power of the media in setting the public agenda, then, how media frame certain topics and events influences this process, and directly affects how we “know what we know” about the world around us.
As Todd Gitlin explained, “frames are principles of selection, emphasis, and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters." Moreover, “Media frames are persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and exclusion, by which symbol-handlers routinely organize discourse, whether verbal or visual."
For example, does a news article use the term “death tax” or “estate tax,” “illegal immigrant” or “undocumented worker,” “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion,” “accuser” or “victim,” “homosexual marriage” or “gay marriage” or “marriage equality”? Similarly, was the central character in a story “irate” “concerned” “upset” or “voicing concern”? In the process, were they demanding “special rights” or “equal rights”? Now, consider what a news article implies if it explains, “A local citizen advocating for ‘illegal aliens’ was ‘irate’ at city hall Tuesday, demanding ‘special rights,’” compared to an article that explains, “A local citizen advocating for ‘undocumented workers’ was at city hall Tuesday ‘voicing concern’ over the lack of ‘equal rights.’”
new.png)
Similarly, was the central character in a story “irate” “concerned” “upset” or “voicing concern”? In the process, were they demanding “special rights” or “equal rights”? Now, consider what a news article implies if it explains, “A local citizen advocating for ‘illegal aliens’ was ‘irate’ at city hall Tuesday, demanding ‘special rights,’” compared to an article that explains, “A local citizen advocating for ‘undocumented workers’ was at city hall Tuesday ‘voicing concern’ over the lack of ‘equal rights.’”
Certainly this is an extreme example, demonstrating very specific perspectives, but it helps convey the power a story has in reporting the news. If we limit our news media consumption to few or even one media source, then, the frames used to report on that event or topic imply a very specific perspective of reality. Of course, journalists do not typically intend to frame a story in a way that twists or eschews the core meaning of the news being reported. Indeed, as you will see in our practice scenario, most examples of framing are much more nuanced than the above scenario. Journalists use frames, however, to help break down often-complex situations into digestible content for public consumption. In the process, as Goffman suggested, they inevitably do so using their own lens and experience—their own frames.