Framing Effects of News Coverage: America's Popularity Contest

Framing:


Advertising sells, and no one knows this better than America. By showing people benefits of something, they are more likely to oblige with its message. At the heart of advertising is the tiny kernel of truth that will make people feel happy to support your product or service. Advertising is powerful and influence, which are not bad things, until it is used in place of an actual product or service.

This is the biggest issue with American politics today: the American people allow advertising and pr to buy elections, even war, and politicians for use these means to win. It works. And both are at fault. There are two sports cars next to each other, a blue one and a red one. Sports cars look great in red, you just LOVE red! So you pick that one. But what about the sports car itself? Is it going to run? Is having a sports car going to be the best option for your family's means of transportation? How much does it cost? What's the gas milage? Does it even have an engine underneath the hood? What if you knew you were only picking it because you love red, you believe in it, you grew up being taught that red is the best, and you HATE blue (blue is blasphemy! and you are a devoted Christian)? But the blue is the only one out of the two that actually works you are told. Would you still pick the red?

This is what politics has turned into while under the glamourous spotlights of advertising and pr. The text notes that journalism today (referring to elections) consist of, "the poll standings, delegate count, and size of crowd at public rallies far more frequently than coverage of the idealogical stances of the candidates and policy platforms they advocate." Advertising and pr are setting the stage for framing and journalists are recording it. Politicians have begun to use these tools to facilitate a popularity contest while ideology on the issues and actual proposals are overlooked.

Although, the only issues that are not overlooked (and are the focus of most debate) are controversial ones, like abortion and gay marriage. Instead of spending time talking about how they are going to solve America's issues, which would help everyone, candidates finger point at each other, and target audiences with sensitive issues that that they know patrons feel very strongly on about one side of the argument or the other. Advertising and pr illuminates these stances while turning everything else to its shadow.

That way, it becomes an us vs. them, when it should be America versus its current problems and their plan to attempt to fix those problems (which relates to the argument on page 16). Voters should be picking the best answers to those questions, but hot topics gain the most exposure because most people already know what they think about such topics and can, and will, respond to them. Until the limelight is refocused on intelligence and implementing plans to solve our country's problems and away from being in love with a sports car because it's red, progress will continue to stall. The red lovers will never agree with the blue, because they're blue, and vise versus. Nothing will ever be solved until they find a way to work together in a way that will benefit the both of them, even if that means being willing to give a little up on their own end.

Is Anyone Responsible?

I think that unfortunately, with a nightly news show reporters have a very short amount of time. I don't think people should really expect the nightly news to work towards more "thematic" coverage, because there are other sources available to that purpose such as magazines or online articles.

However, I think that news reporters have a tremendous effect on how people interpret the news, therefore affecting the sociocultural ideas we surround ourselves with. For example, I was talking with a friend today and she mentioned that during television news, reporters never refer to President Obama as "President" Obama. Rather, they just refer to him as "Obama." She explored the idea that because t.v. reporters repeatedly referred to President Obama this way, he was not as respectable or important as past presidents in the eyes of the public.

In the video clip below, Jon Stewart discusses Ron Paul being ignored by television reporters. It demonstrates how much power news reporters have. Their word choice can turn into something bigger, in this example its the "top tier", which Ron Paul is consistently left out of. It's a funny clip, watch if you're interested!

Framing Effects of News Coverage

• "It cannot be concluded that framing effects are limited to the naive and the ignorant." - So very true! Some things are obviously framed a little more subjectively than others, but in reality, everything, not just politics or news, in our society is framed in some way, and it affects people from every rung of the ladder. An obvious example is that the events of September 11th were framed for our society as a terrorist attack, but if we were reporting the news for al-qaeda, it would be a victory against an opposing nation. There are just too many perspectives in this world and everybody thinks too differently for anybody to be completely and truly objective.
• episodic vs. thematic news coverage - It would be nice for news to be more thematic and therefore, more informational/educational, but it isn't possible. At least not if we're talking about nightly news coverage, when there's no time to cover more in-depth topics. Broadcast reporters need something to fill up the news block, and events are easier and quicker to cover than thematic news.
• "The ultimate political impact of framing is proestablishment." - I never thought about it like that, but I guess it is true. But if a station were to report on all the issues and blame everything on the government, it probably wouldn't be respected as a very credible news source (just considered as one of those right-wing extremists).

Television and Responsibility

I found this article very intriguing. Everyone knows that television has effects on people, but I don’t think people understand the full scope of it. As a side note, I thought it was funny how Iyengar said that people spend more time in front of screens rather than in interpersonal interaction. I had a read an article last year how social scientists were studying the social behaviors of men toward women, and they said men who play videogames are losing the confidence to flirt and approach women.

To get back on topic, it is true that t.v. news gives way more attention to events and occurrences and not on issues that can’t be reduced to short clips. I think this is why there really isn’t much discussion on the environment and quality of reservations like Dillon had mentioned. There are plenty of issues that the public is unaware of because of this. Therefore, politicians are not being questioned about issues that are important but overlooked.

When it comes to elections, it is true that news stations focus on the turnout and swing states. They do focus on the candidates’ platforms, but only on the standard issues. T.V. news always needs to provide more context even if it’s hard news or a thematic event. I think more people would vote if they knew more about their platforms in regards to other issues.

This articles demonstrates the power journalists have in shaping public thought and political discussion. 

Thematic and Episodic Framing in the News

Based on the way this article pitched these two frames, episodic framing is the easiest template in which to create a captivating 'news' program for TV audiences who turn to their screens for entertainment or relaxation, but not so much for people who seek to critically understand the global narrative of events.

When news is presented episodically, it takes on a much simpler, almost sitcom -like form. You are presented with looping footage of some exciting events; explosions, bombs, rallies, riots, shoot-outs, congressional hearings, police action, soldiers and guns, etc...  In this way, the news becomes more exciting or engaging in a shallow and easily digested manner. In fact, I'll bet that most TV viewers wouldn't even sit around to hear their news contextualized.

In our news, especially regarding what we call 'terrorism,' contextualization is almost taboo. For example, news reports commonly address suicide bombings or other violent attacks against American soldiers occupying Afghanistan. The narrative has become quite mundane now. But, I personally have not seen and media endeavor to try and explain the line of reasoning behind people, so filled with desperate rage, driven to the point of blowing themselves up to inflict damage in whatever manner that they can. When presented episodically, it comes to seem natural to us. We don't really question the fact or find it strange that our nation is involved in creating conditions which have prompted violent suicide amongst the native inhabitants to become something semi-standard.

So, as journalists, I think it important to clarify our own manner of presenting the news. Once a trend has been established, then the particular events are not so important as an attempt to contextualize and explain the trend its self. We educate reporters to develop an intellect and go out and tell us what happened, but who is being educated to help us understand why?

Also, I couldn't read chapter 1 of this article. It was absent from the preview version of the article.