Why Influence?
Everyday
Modern
Definitions
Ethics I
Ethics II
Disciplines
Approach
Bad Info
Structure
Mindfulness
Mindlessness
6 Principles
Matrix
Cults I
Cults II
Cults III
Framing I
Framing II
Framing III
Framing IV
Framing V
Framing VI
Framing VII
Framing VIII
Bibliography
Links |
 |
Media Framing
The
premiere framing institution of our time, the American media dramatically
shapes the way we view current issues. As early as 1920, a scientist named
Lippman proposed that the media would control public opinion by focusing
attention on selected issues while ignoring others. Known as the "agenda-setting"
hypothesis, the idea that people were easily susceptible to media influence
was soon derided as an overly simplistic misperception of the viewing audience.
Through most of this century, media pundits claimed that the public
wasn't susceptible to simple "hypodermic" injections from the media (and
you can still hear this defense put forward by today's media moguls). But
the agenda-setting hypothesis has been revisited recently by scientists
like Krosnick & Miller (1996), who have traced surges and declines
in presidential popularity to media contextualizing.
In 1991, the gulf war dominated media coverage, pushing Bush's approval
ratings to 90% after the war--the highest rating in American history.
A short 12 months later, Bush was defeated at the polls. How could one
of the most popular presidents in American history lose a subsequent election?
There was no publicised scandal, no political gaffe, no international blunder
that could explain Bush's misfortunes.
Media personalities often explain national changes in mood by denigrating
the fickle, mindless American public. Remember when Dan Rather attributed
the 1994 Republican wins to a public that threw a "tantrum"? But a fickle,
mindless public isn't the answer either. The answer to national mood swings
appears to be psychological rather than logical. Seemingly inconsequential
changes in issue presentation have been shown to cause dramatic shifts
in public preference.
Researchers Krosnick & Brannon (1993) used national survey data
to answer this very question. During 1992, the media refocused its attentions
from the war to the national economy. Based on sophisticated statistical
analyses, Krosnick & Brannon demonstrated that this media refocus largely
accounted for Bush's declining popularity in 1992.
Because of this and similar research, many media experts are once again
viewing the public as passive recipients of "hypodermic" media injections.
Yeah, that's right: people are told what to think by the media. And the
vast majority of people obediently think as they're told. It's just human
nature--who has the time or the energy to sort out all the issues one's
self? The media does this for us. It offers us safe, often comforting opinions
that appear to be the consensus of the nation. (The internet is a chink
in the armor.)
Communications
scientist Robert Entman (1993) states that "Journalists may follow the
rules for objective reporting and yet convey a dominant framing of the
news that prevents most audience members from making a balanced assessment
of a situation."
This requires that we ask a fundamental question: if media elites can
effectively shape public opinion by emphasizing certain issues and ignoring
others, what is the nature of a modern, media-dominated democracy?
Does public opinion reside in the minds of citizens, or is public opinion
manufactured elsewhere and then merely deposited in the minds of citizens?
Entman thinks that attempting to determine the public's 'true' opinion
is often a futile effort, since opinions can be as easily manufactured
as they can be measured.
Continue for frame defense . . .a,
propaganda, communications, cult, cult, cult, cults, cults, cults, mind
control, mind control, mind control, argument, argumentation, debate, adherence,
Kelton Rhoads, Kelton Rhoads, Kelton Rhoads, Cialdini, Cialdini, Robert
Cialdini. |