Is it a fallacy to think that the media could ever really be objective?

This is a question posed by Jay Rosen from the PressThink blog. Rosen writes that the media’s endeavors to appear “fair and balanced” hide the framing decisions every journalist must make when presenting information.

Instead of hiding under this objectivity pretense, the press should, in effect, keep it real. Rosen proposes that journalists should be upfront about their biases towards the issue, “show their work,” verify their sources, and stay away from “false balance” in the name of “professional journalism” (since such a thing never really existed anyway).

As more journalists adopt this new form of “authentic self” reporting, what does this mean for advocates? Let’s dig a little deeper into the notion of media framing.

Gamson and Mogdigliani (1987) define a media frame as “a central organizing idea or storyline that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events…The frame suggests what the controversy is about, the essence of the issue.”

A media frame, then, is a critical part of every new story. It shapes how the public thinks about the issue, whether they should care, and/or how they should act (e.g. as a citizen or a consumer).

For example, consider James Fallow’s observations in The Atlantic (“Framing a Story: Journalism 101.“). Fallow poses a question to readers to see if they can guess how a recent WSJ story was framed.

It begins this way:

“Americans are using more gadgets, televisions and air conditioners than ever before. But, oddly, their electricity use is barely growing, …”

Possible choices for the rest of the paragraph are:

(a) “… reflecting hard-won efficiencies in electric-power use by industries and utilities.”

(b) “… raising hopes that economic growth can coexist with reduced resource-use and greenhouse-gas emissions.”

(c) “… which together with increased shale-gas production may hasten the era of ‘energy independence’ for the United States.”

(d)”… posing a daunting challenge for the nation’s utilities.”

OK, you peeked, and know that the real answer is (d).

Fallow’s point is that this was a missed opportunity to frame the story in terms of environmental or energy security benefits for the country (which would have activated a civic identity). Instead, the journalist used an economic frame to focus attention on utility industry losses (which activated a consumer identity). Granted, the article appeared in a business section of the newspaper, so it is to be expected that an economic frame would be used. However, the journalist could have focused on national economic gains made from energy efficiency or other ways in which utilities economically benefit (e.g. not having to construct more power plants).

Journalists have a myriad of frames to choose from to tell their story. The frames they choose make all the difference in how information is understood.

Because journalists frame all the time, advocates need to be able to recognize those frames and respond appropriately to build public adoption for their issues. In our research, we rigorously test several frame elements (values and metaphors) with 1000s of Americans in interviews, surveys, and peer discourse sessions to determine which frames will (and will not) lead to support of social issues.

When we work with advocates in our workshops and Study Circles, we help them identify media frames and understand the framing effects in triggering either productive or unproductive ways of thinking about the issue. We also help them deploy tested reframes in their communications so that they can tell a new story in the media that gets the public to think like citizens again.

This is the essence of strategic framing – (1) identify the unproductive frames promoted in the media and public discourse, (2) understand the cognitive and cultural effects of those unproductive frames in public thinking on the issue, and (3) deftly use tested reframes to redirect public thinking on the issue.

When journalists are explicit about their framing choices, it is paramount for advocates to understand the value of empirically-tested framing recommendations. In a more value-laden media discourse, master framers know how to use every public communications opportunity skillfully to deploy frames that have been tested to gain public support.

How does the public make sense of incoming information? Through stories.

What kinds of stories help the public make sense of information on social issues? Thematic stories.

People process new information best through narrative structure. Kurt Vonnegut, the famous American novelist of  Slaughterhouse-five and Cat’s Cradle, knows this well. Watch this entertaining lecture as he lays the basic outline for three types of narrative structures.

Click here to view the embedded video.

What does this mean for those of us in the non-profit communications field?

As you can see, these narrative patterns queue familiar stories. While Vonnegut only briefly mentions key pieces of the story, like “a glass shoe” or a “girl in a hole,” we are able to fill in the rest to provide meaning to his construction. The pattern of the story and his added detail helps us create pictures in our head of what the stories are supposed to be and how they should play out.

Similarly, this is how people understand social issues. When experts and advocates use narrative structure to tell a meaningful story about social issues, they help the public more easily make sense of and take action on those issues.

It is important to distinguish, however, between narrative structure and narrative content. In Vonnegut’s lecture, he uses the specific narrative of Cinderella to explain the structure of the story. We, of course, do not want to tell stories of individuals facing challenges in their personal lives. This would be an episodic story that we know tends to individualize an issue.

To maximize public support, we want to use narrative structure to tell thematic stories that share the experiences of groups and communities facing challenges that they can surmount together. If you’d like to learn more about thematic vs. episodic stories, see our Framing Essentials pdf entitled, “Telling Thematic Stories.”

How can your organization use narrative structure and thematic content to better frame your issue?

This is a guest post from Susan Bales, the FrameWorks Institute President.

In celebration of World Oceans Day, the Washington Post ran an article in its KidsPost section oriented specifically to young readers. We have reposted it here so we can see what we can do, as framers, to help better communicate the challenges our oceans currently face.

An ocean-size challenge

The 58 U.S. national parks are well known for protecting and preserving some of the nation’s most remarkable geography and landmarks. But did you know that there is a similar group of treasured and protected national sites in the ocean, called national marine sanctuaries? Fourteen of them dot the waters of the United States.

Protecting the ocean and its sea life is important for many reasons, but it’s a huge challenge; just one sanctuary near Hawaii is bigger than all of the country’s national parks put together, according to Michiko Martin, education coordinator for the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. The area covered by the 14 sanctuaries “still only represents less than 1 percent of U.S. waters,” she said.

Since today is World Oceans Day, KidsPost’s Margaret Webb Pressler asked Martin about the three biggest challenges facing the ocean.

Trash

Trash can be deadly for marine life.

“It comes from ships, or trash that’s blown off of the shore and enters into our waterways — there are many different ways that it gets there,” she said. Fish, birds and animals can be injured or hurt by the debris, getting tangled in it or eating it. Birds have been known to eat trash and feed it to their young, which can make them sick.

The National Marine Sanctuary program organizes cleanup projects in protected areas and helps educate people about keeping trash out of the nation’s waterways.

Acidification
(ah-SID-i-fi-cay-shun)

This big word refers to a change in the chemical properties of the water. If you were to soak a seashell in vinegar, which is very acidic, it would begin to fall apart after just a few minutes. That same process is happening at a much more gradual pace in the ocean.

Over time, more-acidic water makes it difficult for marine life to create the hard, bonelike structures they need, including including coral, shells and skeletons.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (the result of pollution) dissolves into the ocean and causes chemical changes in the water. National Marine Sanctuary programs monitor protected areas for these changes and test solutions to the problem.

Species loss

Slight changes in the ocean’s temperatures, cleanliness and chemical balance have already caused many species to become extinct. “Largely, the ocean is unexplored; there are so many species that have yet to be discovered,” Martin said. But scientists know that species are disappearing before they are even found.

This can upset the balance of predators and prey in the ocean. But it can result in unknown losses, too. Many medical therapies are based on plant and animal life from the ocean. Every lost species could represent a lost opportunity for a new medical treatment.

Marine sanctuaries try to protect species by preserving the areas where animals produce their young.

For more information, you can visit the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries online at sanctuaries.noaa.gov . For kid-friendly material, click on the “education” tab. Always ask an adult before you go online.

Try taking a look at this article and evaluate it, using a Strategic Frame Analysis approach:

• How well does the article establish why we should be protecting the oceans?  Are there missed opportunities where a strong Value would help orient the young reader to the goal of ocean protection?  Let us know what you would insert and where.

• How clear and memorable is the explanation of the mechanisms for global warming and ocean acidification? Would the addition of a Simplifying Model help here and, if so, how might you incorporate it into the story to drive home the process that threatens the oceans?

• In this article, marine sanctuaries are “the solution” being proposed.  How well does the narrative hold together to lead young readers to understand how the solution fits the problem?  In a good narrative, the solution should practically write itself, or be entirely aligned with the problem definition.  Is there any additional narrative help that could be inserted into the article to set up the solution even better?

• Finally, as you think about articles like this that might prove useful in your organizational materials that reach families, how might you engage young people to give them a sense of agency and responsibility, so that they are active on this issue as future citizens?

Post your thoughts so that we can all benefit from your framing reflections!

Susan Bales