In order to show exactly what is meant by framing and bias, I have picked out 2 articles from different sources about (essentially) the same topic: the struggles Senator Hillary Clinton is facing in her campaign for nomination to the presidency. The first article is from the New York Times, a traditionally liberal paper but one which holds itself to high journalism standards and practices (nevermind the McCain "romance" story). Entitled "Somber Clinton Soldiers On as the Horizon Darkens", the article uses war language such as "attacks", "morale", "retreating", "strategy" and "operation" as if she were literally a warrior taking hits in a battle. Even the title (and image, a stoic shot of a weary, wrinkle-lined face) a suggests thoughts along the same lines. A casual reader might think of this as just an article about what is going on on the campaign trail, however subliminally they are fed images of a once-mighty soldier who is now reflecting on the possibility of losing one of the most important battles in her career.
The other article, called "Ohio, Texas Uphill Climbs for Clinton", was posted on FoxNews.com but was written by a journalist for the Associated Press. It also focuses on Sen. Clinton's struggles, but (I feel, anyways) takes a more casual, "mocking" stance. Just look at the first 3 sentences (copied here):
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's must-win states of Ohio and Texas are no cakewalk for her, largely because independents and crossover Republicans are welcome to vote in their Democratic primaries.
The political calendar of late winter has been less than kind to the embattled presidential contender, who once figured that a big day in early February would affirm her march to the presidential nomination and the rest would be icing.
Instead, it's been slippery ice at every turn, and Ohio and Texas contests on March 4 matter greatly, crucial tests in her big-state fallback strategy.
It sounds from FoxNews.com article as if Sen. Clinton foolishly thought the upcoming contests in Texas and Ohio were going to be easy, but now she's misstepping and slipping on the ice everywhere. Words connoting "military-style" language, as in the NY Times article, are also present here in the forms of "embattled", while Senator Barack Obama is surrounded by words like "strength", "mobilized", and "Obama's forces". The article is supposed to be about Sen. Clinton (which it is), so why do they only quote Sen. Obama?
These are just 2 examples of how journalists can put ideas into readers heads without them knowing it. Hopefully, this will teach us (and others) to read between the lines even more critically than we already have been. Here now are my questions to you: 1.) How effective do you think these and similar techniques are in swaying readers? 2.) Do they have any place in "objective" news reporting, or should it be left to other sources to provide spin? 3.) What effect can framing and bias have in such a close race, and even in other contexts outside of presidential politics?
Melissa
8 comments:
I absolutely agree that that news media is biased and influences readers to think about the topics reported in the way in which they are “framed”. The language used can and does carry over some bias (intentionally or not). Connotations, mood, imagery, and tone are all cleverly snuck into what is supposed to be an “objective” journalistic report. I believe these tactics are effective in planting seeds of influence which people are generally oblivious to. Going back to the opinion-leaders idea from the beginning of the semester, people who consume lots of media will pass on the slanted viewpoint as fact to other people. I think the whole framing and bias thing is effective and does make a difference in people’s opinions.
Since news was always intended to be objective and “just the facts”, this kind of framing and bias should have no place there. Other forms of media are fine, but the news should be the one place where people can go to for information that’s not muddled with spin, angles and bias. According to McQuail, this idealistic vision of the news media will never be obtained since “Framing is a way of giving some overall interpretation to isolated items of fact. It is almost unavoidable for journalists to do this and in so doing to depart from pure ‘objectivity’ and to introduce some (unintended) bias.” (McQuail 379)
The power of the media voice is strong enough to influence people’s opinions in almost anything. Framing will have some kind of impact on people, but I don’t think it’s really possible to determine how much or even if people decide to act on the influences they get from the media. In different competitive contexts, ranging from political elections to which car to buy, there has to be some people buying into the media voice and what it tells them to think. This is a good place to stop before I find a soapbox.
Given the apparent pervasiveness of these framing techniques in news reporting and other forms of media, I think its fair to say that they are at the very least believed to be effective in swaying a reader's ultimate perception of a given circumstance - otherwise, why would producers and authors continue to utilize them? I feel as though the two articles you provided serve as more than enough evidence in demonstrating this notion. If we are to assume that these techniques are in fact effective however, it then becomes exceedingly difficult to determine the extent of those effects, as again, there are any number of external factors or influences that need to accounted for. Personal upbringing, value structures, educational background, and seemingly most important in this particular instance, frame of general knowledge and comprehension are all individual factors that are essential in determining degree of effectiveness. It goes without saying that those individuals who are less than informed on a given issue, or less media adept in general, will be swayed most easily when news framing is applied. In addition, I think it's also important to consider the number of sources that an individual seeks before they are satisfied with the information they have been supplied with - at least to the extent that the information obtained is believed to tell the 'whole' story. I know for me personally, I like to seek out and read/watch/listen to all there is available before I pass judgment or believe I've been fully informed.
In addressing questions of objectivity, I feel as though Mcquail says it best when he states that "Framing is a way of giving some overall interpretation to isolated items of fact. 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). As is the case, I feel that regardless of personal intent, all journalists become subject to this 'fatal flaw' in providing content for their audiences. Again, the two documents within your post demonstrate perfect examples of these circumstances (though I'm sure that damn Fox news fully intended on it!). Though their diction, writing style, and presentation may be entirely arbitrary, it nonetheless presents an 'overall interpretation' of a set a facts - mainly to the extent that they compare Hillary to a embattled soldier.
When dealing with a close political race, much like the one occurring at this very moment, framing and the creation of unnecessary bias can have detrimental effects, especially when one considers how uninformed the majority of our country seems to be. There is absolutely no room for the loss of objectivity that these reports present to the mass public - the spin should be left for the commentators on Sunday morning shows.
-Steve
Just to add very quickly another point on objectivity (as Bridgette slid in with my McQuail quote a few minutes before I finished!), if we are to consider the fact that much of what is reported are actually stories supplied to new organizations with 'built-in-frames,' it becomes hard to overlook the loss of objectivity in this process. As McQuail suggests, "When information is supplied to news media by sources...then it arrives with a built in frame that suits the purpose of the source and is unlikely to be purely objective" (379). The question is, are individuals of the mass media audience intelligent enough to questions the intentions of these said sources. Assuming this is a no, then framing most certainly becomes an issue.
I think clearly in the Fox News Article the journalist is biased towards Obama merely by his tone of language. And I definitely agree with Bridgette that all media outlets are somewhat biased. I think its sad that there is hardly any objectivity left in today’s media outlets and people are subject to hearing someone else’s opinion. However, I do think that people go out and seek media that is going to agree with their points. Its really hard in today’s society to come across a piece of journalism that is completely objective, even without analyzing the words. People who are conservative are going to seek out Fox News because they know what is on their channel is going to be things that agree with their way of thinking, and everyone wants what they think to be reinforced by someone that is getting their ideas out to the entire nation/world. I do think that the most well-rounded and knowledgeable are those who even though they have their own views, are able to read or watch or listen to something that tells the other sides story. I think these framing tactics are really really effective because 99% of the nation is a bunch of retards and doesn’t know how to look at anything critically and they will believe everything that they hear. I think that in today’s news world spin is put on everything and its just time that people start accepting it and learning how to weed out whats objective and whats not, and be able to think for themselves.
I think that news media outlets definitely have the ability to sway readers. Just from the topics we’ve discussed in past classes—such as gatekeeping, agenda-setting, cultivation theory—the media, as we know it, obviously has the ability to not only tell us what to think, but also how to think (as Melissa states in her blog). What kind of almost gets me though is that, how is one to present something completely unbiased and strictly just the facts? Obviously I think some news media outlets try to do this, but as McQuail states, it is basically impossible to give the pure facts without some sort of bias behind it—even if it’s unintended on their part (379).
Going along with the third question Melissa poses, I think that the news media can sway readers in not only close presidential races and politics (which I think it most certainly can, especially if people are looking at only one station-Fox News, ah!-for their information), but in almost any type of event or story that is presented to the news.
As McQuail also states, “framing involves selection… choosing certain pictures…” (378), in which the New York Times chose a picture of Senator Hillary Clinton with a stoic face, looking weary and wrinkled-faced. Simply using that picture, in conjunction with the text that was written, subliminally enters the mind of the reader and they have formed some sort of opinion in their head.
As far as objectivity in certain outlets, I feel that the media audience can take anything and in their own mind (either from past experiences, personal beliefs, or any other types of influences), they will form their own opinion, based on what they are informed from that particular media outlet. My best advice would be for the audience to try to become as educated as possible on a topic by resorting to many different types of news media outlets and try to get the best, overall view on a certain topic or subject matter.
News today is most definitely framed, and I think that the spins that news editors put on stories have a strong effect on the public who consume them. When I read the first article from the New York Times, it made it seem like Hilary Clinton was withdrawing her campaign tomorrow and accepting defeat. It was very emotional in the way that it was written and I think this is where people become influenced. It’s easy to read something entertaining, and emotion and picture adds life to a story. The Times article was easy to read because it was painting a picture of a defeated politician; it evoked emotions. The fox news article on the other hand, I thought (even though it was mostly about Obama) gave more facts about what was going on in Hilary’s campaign and the race, and was mostly dry. This is where people become misinformed because of framing.
Framing in regards to word usage and picture placement, I think in most cases is used to gain readers; to make readers come back to a certain news source time after time because what they are reading is something more than straight dry facts. McQuail refers to a study that was done in 1940, that stated “the (US) newspaper had been transformed from a more or less sober record into a form of popular literature” (377). I think this is exactly what the news media has turned into, entertainment. What people forget is that journalism is a business, and a means to inform at the same time. Going back to a few classes ago when we watched how different news channels covered the same stories, each station added their own spin or take on a story to get ahead of their competitors. One of the main goals of news programs or newspapers is to have the highest circulation or higher ratings than their competitors; this is where framing I think comes in handy.
However, at the same time it sends audiences messages that aren’t necessarily true. Opinions are put forth as facts, and I think that viewers are definitely swayed or reassured in what they read or see. For people who didn’t know much about the democratic race for President, now think that Hilary Clinton is done, and possibly leading to the thought… why vote for her if she herself was about to give up? This is where framing becomes dangerous because it can affect the outcome of something larger than revenues, like a Presidential nominee.
I think that because of this danger framing needs to be controlled to some extent. This however is difficult: “Framing is a way of giving some overall interpretation to isolated items of fact. It is almost unavoidable for journalists to do this and in so doing to depart from pure ‘objectivity’ and to introduce some (unintended) bias.” (McQuail 379) New stories with strong emotion and personal opinions need to be kept the editorial section so that people know ahead of time the bias that stands behind it. I think that the main stories, although it will take away from the excitement in them, need to be more straightforward in their writing. People will still look for those opinion stories, but at least they will know going into it that it should be taken with a grain of salt.
I believe there is a large population of people out there who will believe anything they hear, see or read, especially from a newspaper or news report. Framing tactics are effective in swaying opinions and points of view. There still are plenty of people who do know that there are two sides and a true side to every story and understand there is a spin when reading a newspaper or watching a news report, but even sometimes we chose to believe it anyway.
According to the Glasgow Media Group (1980: 160), ‘The language of the news seems to be in a form which would allow a fairly simple test of its truth or falsity. It has the appearance of being entirely constative (propositional and capable of being shown to be true or false) and not performative’ (McQuail 382). We must note, the ‘capable of being shown to be true or false.’ Who knows what to believe?
At this point, is it even possible to have an objective news report? Even if it did occur, something would be posted saying it wasn’t objective regardless of the truth. These techniques have made their way into the news and created a place for themselves. Should they be there is another question. Also, and can it be possible without it? It seems unlikely. As McQuail Says, "Framing is a way of giving some overall interpretation to isolated items of fact. It is almost unavoidable for journalists to do this and in doing so depart from pure 'objectivity' and to introduce some (unintended) bias (McQuail 379).
Framing, as it affects anything we are given, sure can have an effect on the presidential race, one side can praise, one side can badmouth, who do you believe? One report can sway someone's beliefs while the same report can have no effect on another person. We should always keep in mind that framing exists and it is alright to question what we hear. It is a matter of personal opinion and if you really want, if you have enough time, feed your mind with as many sources as possible and try to sift out the most truth. Or you can just use your best judgment.
Post a Comment