Topic: A Framer Reads the News
Susan Bales for the FrameWorks Institute
September 2002
Sometimes you just have to take your framing lessons where they happen. These days, since most of the news is about war and foreign policy, framers can learn a lot by analyzing the public debate and the frame elements that inform it. Below we follow three important framing strategies now happening in the news: (1) level one priming, (1) the "what's this about" rhetorical strategy, and (3) political cartoons and storytelling.
As always, partisan examples are used solely to call attention to the ways that political actors routinely attempt to control the frames of public discourse, and not to suggest any support for a particular party or position
LEVEL ONE PRIMING
We're seeing a lot of this these days, but the Administration's attempt to provide a conceptual framework for a war against Iraq offers stunning examples of reframing using values primes. We've seen a sea-change in the way the war has been framed of late. The first phase of messaging framed the war as necessary to American self-interest, or keeping ourselves safe from terrorists. You'll note that this did little to engage the public which, much public opinion suggests, is reticent to tell other countries what to do, is strongly in favor of pursuing foreign policies in collaboration with our allies, and does not wish to see the United States as either a bully or a policeman in the world community (for more on how Americans view foreign policy issues, see the FrameWorks website on international interdependence).
The second phase of messaging, then, turned to pre-emption, a classic prevention frame that Kids Counters know all too well. Prevention is a hard card to play. The problem with this framing is that it focuses attention on how real is the threat. That's precisely what comes to light in Senator Zell Miller's highly entertaining recounting of the questions his constituents at Mary Ann's restaurant had about the war ("Questions for the Commander in Chief," Zell Miller, Washington Post, Sunday, September 8, 2002, Page B07). Note how the prevention frame drives people toward a "them vs. us" worldview, which does not further the Administration's goals. It also leads people to question whether we're preventing the right threat, and why we haven't been doing it all along — questions which erode the efficacy and credibility of the prevention frame. Constituents asked:
- "Even if Hussein has nukes, does he have the capability to reach New York or Los Angeles or Atlanta?"
- "The old Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear missiles for decades, many of them capable of reaching our major cities, and yet we didn't get into a war with the Soviets. The president needs to explain why Iraq is different."
- "They also want to hear an explanation of why we didn't take care of this in the Persian Gulf, and why it is on our doorstep again so soon."
So, if self-interest and prevention don't work, where do you place the level one value for the war in Iraq? Freedom and leadership are the frames of the day. The war is suddenly "about" the liberation of Iraq from the tyranny of Hussein, preserving the integrity of the United Nations, and taking on the tough mantle of responsibility to make the world "not just safer but better." These frames, unlike the earlier ones, are more altruistic and less about "what's in it for us." The result? Dramatic swings in public opinion. And an uphill battle for those who would try to win back the moral high ground.
"The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," released last Friday, should be required reading for any student of framing. But here's the Cliff's Notes version from the Washington Post coverage:
Possessing "unprecedented — and unequaled — strength and influence in the world," it begins, and "sustained by faith in the principles of liberty and the value of a free society," the United States also has "unparalleled responsibilities, obligations and opportunities. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom."
The "three strategic principles"…were to "lead the world" against terrorists and "aggressive regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction," to preserve the peace by "fostering good relations among the world's great powers." And to extend the benefits of liberty and prosperity through the spread of American values and tangible rewards for good governance.
Bush Shifts Strategy from Deterrence to Dominance, Karen De Young and Mike Allen, Washington Post, Saturday, September 21, 2002, A1
We can better appreciate the change in strategy if we harken back to the second Presidential debate in which candidate Bush explained his view of foreign policy; here are some salient excerpts:
"The first question is what's in the best interests of the United States? What's in the best interests of our people?…If I think it's in our nation's strategic interests, I'll commit troops.
"Somalia. Started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong…And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used…when it's in our best interests.
"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military's meant to fight and win war. "
Governor George W. Bush
The much-heralded level one frame of self-interest, having proven not so helpful in rallying the American people around the idea of war, is abandoned for level one values of freedom, democracy, leadership, and defending the integrity of our allied institutions. And, when these values are used to prime the discussion of what is the right thing for America to do, it sets up the noble cause frame that Americans are far more likely to endorse than the paltry prevention and pocketbook values.
So what's happening on the other side of this debate? Is there anything framers can learn from the way that critics of the Administration are positioning their issues?
In a Brookings Institution working paper, scholars Ivo H. Daalder, James M. Lindsay and James B. Steinberg characterize two opposing ideologies:
"Americanists emphasize American primacy. They see a world in which the United States can use its predominant power to get its way, regardless of what others want. They believe the United States must summon the will to go it alone if necessary.
"Globalists, on the other hand, emphasize globalization. They see a world that defies unilateral U.S. solutions and instead requires international cooperation. They warn against the temptation of thinking that Americans can go it alone.
"While Americanists focus on how American primacy frees the United States to pursue its interests as it sees fit, Globalists stress how globalization both limits and transforms America's capacity to use its power to influence events overseas."
From Geopolitics to Global Politics: The Challenge for American Foreign Policy, unpublished manuscript, Brookings Institution
So let's analyze the level one strategies inherent in these two camps. When Americanists tell us how American primacy frees the United States to pursue its own interests as it sees fit, and Globalists rejoinder that globalization should both limit and constrain America's power overseas, who do you think wins the values battle? On the one hand, we have freedom and choice, and on the other hand we have limitation and constraint. Who do you think has the more resonant frame? What values are Globalists for? Constraint in service to what larger vision?
The Democrats' strategy, as articulated in the papers we read, appears to be to try to shift the debate back to the comfortable arena of domestic issues where they believe they can win ground. What's wrong with that strategy, fellow framers? Are we learning anything from the opposition? What level one value informs this strategy? You got it — self(ish) interest — the same frame that didn't work for the Bush Administration and which they abandoned. Or, even more powerful, "politics as usual." And that's what David Broder finds as he talks to concerned citizens in the washingtonpost.com chats. "Politics over Principle," declares his column (David S. Broder, Washington Post, Sunday, September 22, 2002, B7). Here we hear Democrats explain their exasperation with a party that thinks it can distract people into talking about things that hit home, e.g. prescription drugs and tax cuts, without taking on the issue of what should be our role in the world. And, each time they do this, Broder asserts, Americans become more and more uncomfortable with a kind of politics that they describe as having "abandoned principle and long-term strategy for the short-term tactics they think will help them in this November's election." Sounds a little bit like "don't think about elephants," don't you think?
WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?
"If this election becomes about our candidate and not Gray Davis, we lose the election."
California Secretary of State Bill Jones ( R ), discussing controversy over nomination of Richard Riordan as Republican candidate for governor (Washington Post, A19, "Riordan Clarifies Abortion Position in Calif. Debate," Sunday, Feb. 10, 2002
The Riordan forces were right to worry, as history has proven. One of the cleverest and simplest ways to frame and reframe is to state explicitly what your issue is "about."
The September 21st Washington Post offered two classic examples of how this device plays out in the struggle to define the terms of the debate. In an article on Rhode Island's lead paint suit, we see the two sides attempt this framing strategy, in which the doctrine of "public nuisance" is being used to sue eight paint manufacturers for malfeasance:
"This case is about the right of the public to be free of harm," attorney Leonard Decof said on the state's behalf at the opening of the trail earlier this month. "The lead paint in houses represents a ticking time bomb."
"Most people who live in Rhode Island in houses with lead paint live safely and maintain their houses. It's not a hazard; it's not a nuisance," (Defense Attorney Timothy) Hardy said. "If you allow electrical wires in your house to fray, you don't sue General Electric."
"R.I.'s Novel Suit Targets Makers of Lead Paint," Pamela Ferdinand, Washington Post, Saturday, September 21, 2002, A2
The first quote uses the power of the "it's about" construct to set up a frame of rights and irresponsibility (in ignoring danger). The second quote attempts to stand the rights and responsibilities frame on its head by evoking the always powerful American frame of personal responsibility. And it does so by trying to make this "about" THOSE PEOPLE who don't maintain their property. The framing strategy here ends with metaphorical reasoning designed to drive home the irresponsibility of those who let their lead paint chip, causing themselves harm.
Both are strong statements, but we think the "it's about" construct adds extra power to the litigants. When you define the problem, you force your opponent into negating it - just as this did - and then they have an elephants problem: restating your position in order to rebut it.
Our second "it's about" example is a little juicier. This example comes from Ellen Goodman's column "Downsizing Jack Welsh" (Washington Post, Saturday, September 21, 2002, A21) and deals with the Welsh divorce and those of other famous executives. Goodman makes the case that, in the old days, these divorces were "about" the wives, who were portrayed as greedy. Now, Goodman asserts, "the attention wasn't on her greed but on his. For once it wasn't the soon-to-be-ex-wife of a gazillionaire looking for big bucks from her husband who was run through the media mill. It was the corporate gazillionnaire himself." And it wasn't about "need" or "entitlement," as past suits had been, but about "partnership."
The lesson here is to be very clear about what it's about, state it explicitly, and force your framing opponents to run on your frame. When you need to bridge away from a bad question, try opening with, "what this is really about is…."
POLITICAL CARTOONS AND STORYTELLING
If you have any remaining doubts about the way we constantly tell and retell the stories we already know in order to make sense of the news, try being attentive to political cartoons. Precisely because they have to boil down complex events and situations into pictographs, political cartoonists are masterful at detecting the story behind the story.
In the Sunday, September 22nd edition of the Washington Post, Tom Toles gives us a splendid example of this thought process. In effect, his cartoon is about trying to discern what fairy tale to use in order to make sense of George Bush. It's called "W and the Beanstalk." In the first frame, Mother US questions W who admits he traded the surplus for a handful of beans. When they don't grow "magically," as he expects, he moves to explaining that "the Mother Goose that lays the golden eggs explained it to me. Everything a tax cut touches turns to gold!" In the next frame, W is portrayed as "The Emperor's New Clothes," proclaiming his new solid gold clothes that only the worthy can see. And in the final frame, he is Pinocchio, with a long nose from his lying. The postscript returns to the original fable, as W says he has to "get back to killing giants now." This lively cartoon demonstrates the cognitive process of trying to find a familiar story to make sense out of complex situations. The cartoonist "tries on" these different fables and then maps them onto the President's behavior and policies to see if they serve to explain them.
We strongly advise framers to attend to political cartoonists. In capturing these simple stories, they help distill the frames in play and suggest stories that advocates can use.
Framers must take their framing lessons from many other issues, not just the landscape of children's issues. And sometimes it's easier to learn off of others' issue terrain than your own. Don't forget to send us examples from your home-town papers to replenish our stock of framing follies, great framing strategies, and other examples of elements of the frame!
