I'd like to start by quoting McQuail's definition of framing (found on page 378): "...a frame is needed to organize otherwise fragmentary items of experience or information. The idea of a 'frame' in relation to news has been widely and loosely used in place of terms such as 'frame of reference,' 'context,' 'theme,' or even 'news angle.' ...it is also necessary to use the term with some precision, especially when the aim is to study the possible effects of framing of news. In that case the content frame has to be compared with the frame of reference in the mind of an audience member." McQuail continues to say that no journalist is ever able to be completely objective and there is always a tone that indicates some sort of bias.
What McQuail was trying to say is that every piece of media comes off with a subliminal message, especially pertaining to the news. Journalists are supposed to be impartial and objective, but particular word choice and story line-up order indicates certain messages to its audience. Framing is how a piece of media is presented and what message it delivers to the consumer. The slightest change in and adjective in a news package can dramatically sway the impression the audience is getting from the information.
Here's an example. Here are two stories on the same topic by different networks.
Ralph Nader Joins Presidential Race, CNN
Ralph Nader Joins Presidential Race, Fox News
I obviously had to chose this story because Ralph Nader trying to make a comeback is hilarious. Besides that, you can see how CNN frames the story as Nader running is a disgrace to the nation. The journalist got comments from other candidates that emphasized Nader's running is a mistake, and the overall tone of the article was negative. On the other hand, in the Fox News story, the main interview was with Nader himself and was more positive compared to CNN. Both stories are on the front page of their websites as one of the first links, and this is huge national news. Both stories are reporting on the fact that Ralph Nader is running for President as an Independent. But, the two different journalists swayed the stories to their liking and certain impressions were received about this situation due to their way of framing the article.
What are other examples that you have seen of framing? I know that every single night on the news you can tell what the producers believe is most important because they'll run those stories first. Also, over-dramatic language is emphasized in news packages, which encourages bias. It seems like you are unable to obtain any true, objective, factual information from the media anymore. Obviously, with editorials and features the journalist has the freedom to allow their personal opinions enter the framework. But, in general newscasting, objectivity is supposed to be the basis of their work. Factual reporting does not happen anymore.
This is a major issue because it messes with their audiences. Consumers are heavily influenced by what they are exposed to, as we learned from McQuail in the Uses and Gratifications theory. People, in their minds, turn to the news to obtain information. When they are utilizing this resource, they are being exposed to dramatized material and are going to be developing their own personal opinions from tainted sources. Do you feel the same way?
11 comments:
Kate, I definitely agree with you on this one. There are so many examples in the news where framing changes the tone of a story. Another obvious one going on now besides the Ralph Nader article is the NY Times article about John McCain. Since the post above yours talks about that article, I won't go there. When McQuail says on page 379 that no journalist is able to completely rid their work of bias, he is spot on.
When i think of framing I am always drawn back to the coverage of Hurricane Katrina. I know that probably everyone has learned about this but too bad :) I'm still going to talk about it! Katrina really brought out the racial tension that we like to keep under wraps in this country. Journalists and news wires were incredibly biased when they reported on the state of New Orleans. When there was a picture of a black person going through an abandoned grocery store looking for food to survive, the caption under the picture often read that the person was "looting" or stealing. When there was a white person doing the same thing, they were "finding food". This came from the ASSOCIATED PRESS!!!! The ones we love and trust so much!! It's not like some local journalist wrote these things, it was our national newswire. And HELLO....state of emergency, no food or clean water....I'd steal every bit of food I could find. Who are the AP to say a black man is stealing but a white man is "finding". Ridiculous.
Anyway, I agree with you Kate that there is very little factual reporting going on. We have lost any sense of objectivity in our journalism. Now there are so many news channels that are either liberal or conservative that it is hard to know what is true. At least we are aware of what's going on so we can try to get a more balanced view of the news. Pity the fool who believes what they see on the news!!
Ralph Nadar, what a hooligan. Got to love Fox News for supporting anything that has to do with reinforcing any kind of news that even remotely relates to the Republican party. Rupert Murdock, what a hooligan. But anyway, framing is definitely something that is inescapable these days in the news. And to play devils advocate to Kate's post, sometimes framing is not all that bad, and in fact, just necessary to relate information to the public based on what the editors, producers, journalists, etc, will think has the most effect or importance to the consumer. What I mean by this is issues pertaining to the weather, issues of safety that effect many across the nation, or when we watched the clip about the possibility of tainted beef. The people in charge of the news have to make decisions like this, and they have to add emphasis to the language or delivery of such information in order to keep people in tuned to the newscast.
HOWEVER, this is generally where a little goes a long way, and that idea seems to have gone out the window a long time ago. It seems as though simple information now has become sensationalized, biased and so subjective. The only good thing to come of that is (hopefully) that the public consumer of news will get a sense of that and continuing to find information about a subject, to research and go out there and take in all the different ideas about it to come up with their own point of view on a topic. This is especially important during a time like now, election time.
The Ralph Nadar articles were excellent examples of how framing can effect a story, of how a network can be responsible for the outcome of a news story and how there may never be an unbiased story to be produced simply because of a journalists own style of writing. I did notice that both articles used simlar, if not actually the same quote from Huckabee about how it was a good thing that Nadar was running, because historically it has taken away votes from the Democratic party and strengthened the Republican side. However, in the context of that same quote, the ideas behind it were very different. In the CNN article, it was used to further attack and diminish Nadar's abilities and reasonings for running; while in the Fox article, it was used to show his strategy and the possibiliy that this election time, he could make it work. To me, that is so...fasinating, for sake of sounding like a nerd. To take the same quote and be able to twist it around to fit the frame of the story is a scary power that I think even us in this class, can sometimes overlook unless we're are literally comparing two articles on the same topic. It makes you a very skeptical consumer of media, but I think that's a great thing because it pushes a person to do some digging and get involved in their own way. And I think Pilar's comments about Hurricane Katrina are right on as well. That time in our country was such an embarrassing expose of how race relations and tensions are nowhere near gone and it definitely shed light on the problems of framing.
I'm not sure if there is very little factual reporting going on though in normal media though. I think people in the business would be very quick to pounce on inaccurate media that is sent out to the public- I do think it's a matter of how it is presented, which is essentially what Kate is presenting here. At this day and age, I think the consumer needs to be more aware of their own beliefs and take the time to disect the information provided. But I know that's pretty idealistic thinking, and it really shouldnt even get to that point. But it has, and unless we get a new wave age of objective journalists out there soon (cough, media studies kids in mss 331, cough) we'll sadly just have to keep one eyebrow raised every time we read or hear a story.
According to McQuail, "it is almost unavoidable for journalists to do this and in so doing to depart from pure 'objectivity' and to introduce some (unintended) bias" (379). Because of this, journalists are obviously bias when they report the news or write an article. The tone of the journalist can add to the effect of the story and the journalist give their opinions without even realizing them I believe. Fox News is a major example of that, I think that the whole news station is completely bias and always end up saying an opinion without realizing it.
I think most news stations or newspapers do this mostly when a major event happens, such as 9/11 or a natural disaster. Obviously these stories are going to be front runners for a long time. I think 9/11 was the top story for over a month, as was Hurricane Katrina and the Tsunami in India.
I think journalists using their own opinions and being bias, even if its completely unintended is wrong and it does sway the opinion of the audience. The audience look to the news for neutral facts about what is going on in the world, they should be able to form their own opinions and not be brainwashed by what journalists are saying, or what tones they are using.
There are definitely some great examples of framing in these articles you've provided, Kate. In the one from CNN it really focuses on the negative aspect of Nader joining the presidential race. It keeps harping on who it will take votes from and calling Nader a "spoiler", despite Nader's denial on being one. The FOX article is a little more bare bones, it give you the facts and not much opinion. When it comes to credentials of the two publications I thought it would be the other way around, but I'm not brushed up on my politics enough to fully argue that. On page 378, McQuail talks about how journalism has to be on the same wavelength as your audience. Meaning a journalist has to appeal to their audience by relating to them and giving them examples that they are familiar with. In the Nader articles, both writers refer to the 2000 election when Nader pulled a similar stunt and ran as an independent. This move pulled votes away from the Democratic party and gave Bush the win in the extremely close race in Florida. As I said before, Nader denies this being his fault. You can see framing everywhere, not just in the news. As an avid sports fan, a recent moment came to mind when I was reading about framing. I was watching my boyfriend's college hockey game last weekend and it was the last home game. Before the game the Seniors received flowers to give to their parents and get a little picture taken and get a little speech given about them. There were four seniors that were being recognized. Two were captains and the other two were the 2nd and 3rd string goalies. The two goalies were introduced first and given a brief report on their stats, and then a monotone announcement of their name when they skated over to their parents. However, when the two captains were announced, the announcer started heating up, really giving it his all, leading up the announcement of their names "MIIIIIIKKKKKEEE STEEEEEEVENNNNNNNNSSSSSSS!" Now, I understand in sports that you have the all stars of the team, but this was a moment when I think each player should receive the same individual announcement as the rest. I know the example isn't pulled from the New York Times or a horrific tragedy, but I'm just proving that framing is everywhere. This announcer framed the Senior Day activities around the two captains because they put the points up on the board and play thirty minutes a game.
To answer Kate's questions about objective journalism, I believe that it's really difficult to find anymore. However, audiences aren't reading the news objectively either. I feel like readers and viewers look for things to pick out of the news so they can blame the journalist or the broadcaster. (Get a life people!) Objectivity has become obsolete, everyone has an opinion and they want it to be heard.
These two articles are perfect to compare when it comes to the topic of framing. You can clearly tell the difference between CNN's thoughts and views on Naders decision to run for President compared to Fox News opinion on the matter. McQuail states, "Framing involves selection and salience." Selection was definitly used in both these articles. CNN played both sides letting Nader state his feelings but also quoted Obama, "He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush and, eight years later, I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about," On the other hand, Fox News, who obviously support the Republican party more did not have any quotes from Democrats or other people who may disagree with Naders decision. The article only quoted Nader and let him state his opinions. The differences between the articles are clear.
First of all, we all know that FOX News (if you can call anything FOX puts out as “news”) is biased. Try as one may, there isn’t any way around the fact that they deliberately push a Republican agenda. This isn’t news. But for a lot of people, they think that FOX is the only network to have deliberately biased news. This is not true, as McQuail points out. McQuail makes clear the point that all journalists have some sense of bias, whether it is of their own or of the network/editor/department head, although they may try to avoid it: "it is almost unavoidable for journalists to do this and in so doing to depart from pure 'objectivity' and to introduce some (unintended) bias" (379).
Each network has an agenda to push, it is simply that FOX pushes more strongly than most. Each is going to portray a news story in a different way to further the message that the network supports. This is especially true in the case of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. It was very clear what networks had ties to government agencies, as certain networks called out FEMA for their poor management whereas on others, FEMA’s lack of management and poor response was barely a blip on their radar.
Even if a network is not consciously presenting news with a bias, where the story falls in a newscast and what language is used can portray a subliminal message to the viewer. The inability of the media to maintain objectivity and lack of bias is disappointing, as news is supposed to be “neutral and unbiased.” It is a shame that this doesn’t seem to exist anymore.
I definitely agree with everyone that framing exists everywhere, especially in the news and it’s ultimately hurting audiences because it’s gotten to the point where you can’t totally believe anything you read or see on TV. Every time I see or read anything about the Presidential candidates I feel like I have to double check its accuracy so that my opinions don’t end up skewed. This is ridiculous considering that news outlets should be the one place audiences should trust to tell the truth and present an unbiased story.
Even though framing is so prevalent in the news, I agree with Jill that many people don’t consume media objectively. I think that most people who are avid Fox News watchers understand that the broadcast is going to be biased towards the republican party, but I also think that these people don’t care and choose to watch this channel because it blatantly supports the Republican party.
I thought it was interesting that McQuail presented the example of framing that dealt with the Korean aircraft being shot down by a Soviet plane and the Iran civil flight shot down by an American naval ship (pg. 379). On the news, the Korean plane incident was portrayed as a deliberate attack while the Iran plane incident was considered a tragic mistake. It’s laughable that two events that are almost identical can be described in totally different ways, just so that the innocent and honorable reputation of the United States could be upheld. It scares me to think that not everyone gets to learn about the media as we do as media studies student’s because many people would probably never notice what’s wrong with the media today.
OK. So framing is bad. At least, that’s what I am getting from all of the responses. Yes, I agree framing interferes with the objectivity of journalism and reporting. But just to play devils advocate here, think about what it would be like if news wasn’t framed? The cold information would be the same, the stories would be the same, lined with basic facts of s situation. The question is, with just the basics of a story, does the stick? Do we ever think about the story again after we change the station? Framing, although is often “discussed in terms of bias” (McQuail, 343), gives context, gives viewers some meat to digest, gives something to think about. Framing, in a sense gives viewers motivation to make a personal connection and give deep thought to a story.
Now, is that a good thing? – Open to discussion. And although it is not the job of news reporters to provide viewers with motivation to think and mentally invest into stories, it sure is a powerful tool to have at their fingertips. And to be honest, with the overwhelm of information we have access to online, on TV, on the radio, and with the concern of validity at the forefront of those media, I tend to avoid searching for information all together. Therefore, I don’t really emotionally or mentally invest in anything going on outside of my life, like for example, (embarrassingly enough to admit) the current presidential race. But when news reporters “frame” or give bias to a story, whether I agree or disagree with their bias or frame, it still gets me thinking regardless. It get’s me involved. Does that make framing entirely bad!? Again – devils advocate here. I don’t necessarily have an opinion either way. Just food for thought.
I agree with everyone's assessment of framing in the mass media, however I'm stuck in the middle with regards to the issue at hand. As the news media has evolved so have the way in which they tell the stories. Framing is the only way networks can attract audiences to the 24-hour news cycle. The majority of our society has become dependent on television or the media in general and relationship's are constantly being built and reevaluated as times change. Everyone has the right to their own opinion which allows the news media to justify the ways in which they frame the news. We all may not agree with the ways that stories are twisted and which events get priority over other but at the end of the day its up to the individual to form their own opinion. I'm not sure where I first heard this quote but it sums up the theme found throughout mass communications. "Those who control the media, control the mind," and framing is the perfect way for networks to do this. If you watch or read anything on the primary you can tell which networks side with which parties. They may say that they are impartial however thats just another example of framing.
With the power that the mass media holds today in our society I believe its up the individual to take in the story from different perspectives and do just a little research on the topic before fully forming an opinion. Its my opinion that you shouldn't open your mouth and talk about something unless you have heard the story from both sides and then have made your own judgement about the event.
I totally agree with what you’re saying here. In fact, I think a lot of the time framing doesn’t only change the tone of the story, I think it often changes what the story is, what is actually being reported as news. I agree with McQuail about the possible effects of framing in the news when he says that content frame can and should be compared with the frame mind of an audience member, (page 378). I believe that the frame of mind of a viewer in relation to a segment of news is shaped by the way the content in that segment is presented to him or her. In the same way, I believe that the viewer’s reaction and opinion to a news segment is in response to their frame of mind about the issues that a news segment concerns. I also agree with McQuail’s opinion that no journalist is ever really completely objective. Just the way they chose what to report, before they even mold the way and tone in which they report it indicates some sort of bias. It seems to me that journalists report on things that they deem important, and if they think a certain piece of news is important they almost have to have an opinion about it, either positive or negative feelings about it, and this opinion is difficult to hide and usually recognizable in the tone in which the news is presented. The way news is presented almost always seems to send some sort of message to the audience. This is what I think of when I hear ‘framing.’
The example of the two articles about Nader entering the presidential race was a very accurate portrayal of framing. The word choice and choice of quotes from Obama, Clinton, and Nader created definite tone in Fox News’ and CNN’s articles. Both journalists took this headline story and portrayed it through their own opinionated frame. Fox was definitely very opinionated in its wording, especially when the article stated: “He is still loathed by many Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost the party the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin contest in Florida.” There is no way to deny the framing in that sentence.
There is very little strictly factual reporting in the news. In defense of the journalists out there, I think it would be very difficult to do. If something is newsworthy (which is also questionable about a lot of stories in the news) you are most likely going to have an opinion about it one way or another. Consumers are definitely heavily influenced by what they are exposed to when consuming news and this has a powerful effect on how they form opinions on issues in the news. Another good example of framing that comes to mind is the clip we watched in class about the beef recall and the animal cruelty to cows. The real news there was the beef recall, which needed to be known because it effected so many. However, the segment was aired with such framing that it was unclear if the story was focused on a recall of beef or on animal cruelty. They used suggestive wording and strategic interviews with an animal rights activist to tell the story, and it definitely aimed to shape the opinion on the viewer.
I definitely agree with Kate on this point. I also agree with McQuail when he says that no journalist can ever present a story completely and totally objectively, there just isn't a way to do that. I wish that there was a way for journalists to present information in a completely ubiased point of view but the truth is, there isn't. Even in journalism classes we learn to think about the "news angle", how we are going to present the story.
As for the Fox News and CNN articles, I think that that was the perfect way to illustrate framing. Fox News is the first thing that comes to mind when I think about framing. Even in my high school journalism class, we learned how biased Fox News is. That has stuck with me since. I don't watch Fox News ever, but if I happen to drop by it while I'm channel surfing, I usually can't help but cringe when I hear what they are saying. Just like there are two main political parties in this country, there are two main political news outlets, one for each party.
We have learned in this class that people use the news for obtaining information from the uses and gratifications theory like Kate said. This "information" might not be exactly objective, so where does that leave that person who consumes the media? As media students, I think that we know better. However, average people who watch the news every night may not pick up on this, which isn't their fault, but I find it very unfortunate.
Post a Comment