NAME:

AKIN-LAWRENCE FISAYO ESTHER

MATRIC:

134072015

COURSE:

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND WORLD PRESS

Introduction
The premiere framing institution of our time, the 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 wasnt susceptible to simple
hypodermic injections from the media (and you can still hear this defense put forward by
todays 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.
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 isnt 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 Bushs 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, thats right: people are told what to
think by the media. And the vast majority of people obediently think as theyre told. Its just
human nature--who has the time or the energy to sort out all the issues ones 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 publics true opinion is often a futile effort, since opinions can be as easily manufactured as
they can be measured.

Framing Theory
Framing theory according to Scheufele and Tewksburg (2007), posited that the way a news item
is presented can have an influence on how it is interpreted and understood by the audience. The
authors proposed a model of framing effect with the central idea that news frame activates
certain inferences, ideas, judgment and contrasts concerning issues and policies. Particular
concern is expressed on how news stories are placed, either presented with an imposing banner
to get public attention and sympathy or tucked inside the newspaper for an interested reader to
find.
In this regard, more attention is given to how news information is presented or framed. Tuchman
(1978) observes that a frame is needed to organize otherwise fragmentary items of experience or
information. The idea of a frame in relation to news has been widely and loosely used in place
of term of frame of reference, context, theme or even news angle. In journalistic context,
stories are given meaning by reference to some particular news value that connects one event
with other similar ones. According to Entman (1993), framing involves selection and salience.
He summarizes the main aspect of framing by saying frame defines problems, diagnose causes,
make moral judgment and proffer solutions. .

Based on principles of selection and salience there are many ways newsmakers have the power
to shape the way a story is presented through framing (Clegg Smith, et al., 2002). The power is
demonstrated through strategic ideological framing of not only the facts of the story itself but of
the actors, leaders, affected communities, relevant arguments and proposed solutions (Pan &
Kosicki, 2001). For example, the selection and omission of particular sources contributes to the
framing of an issue, with official sources such as politicians and government figures often
dominating stories in the media (Teece & Makkai, 2000) whereas alternative voices tend to be
marginalised (Hansen et al, 1998). In the same way, choice of language is important in framing
problems and solutions.

Framing and the Way People Think

The topic of climate change is a great example of how message framing can alter public opinion.
For instance, replacing the term global warming with the broader term climate change
expanded the topic and enabled people to consider different aspects of the issue. Because
different aspects call for different solutions, opportunities were opened to address a range of
relevant factors. The phenomenon of "climate change" can further be framed as "ice caps
melting" or "preventing the next ice age." Very different meanings for the same phenomenon that
would require very different reactions.
The media are somewhat known for negative framing, for putting a negative spin on news
because otherwise it wouldn't be newsworthy: If it bleeds it reads. For example, a study by Pratt,
Ha, and Pratt (2002) of the representation of diseases in the media in Africa showed that the
media often used negative and derogatory descriptions when reporting on diseases such as
HIV/AIDS. In contrast, they used no negative terms or examples and no derogatory language in
reporting on diseases such as tuberculosis. As a consequence of the way in which the media
framed the topic in a negative light, it is likely that people with HIV/AIDS were seen in a
negative way by people who heard or read the reports. Tuberculosis patients were more likely to
have received sympathy from those same people.
There are many different frames, some of which I want to at least mention. When news is
reported in the form of specific events or particular cases, the framing is episodic. Citizens

receiving episodic reports are less likely to consider society responsible for the events, and more
likely to think that individuals are responsible. In contrast, when political issues and events are
presented in a general or collective context, the framing is thematic. Citizens receiving thematic
reports are less likely to hold individuals accountable, and more likely to believe that society is
responsible. Research has shown that when citizens viewed media stories about poverty featuring
homeless or unemployed people (episodic framing), they were more likely to blame poverty on
individual failings, such as laziness, or on low levels of education. Those people who viewed
media stories about high national rates of unemployment or poverty (thematic framing),
however, were less likely to place blame on individual failings; instead, they attributed
responsibility to governmental policies and other factors beyond the victims control (Iyengar
1991).
A news story that focuses on describing a specific problem or policy has an issue frame. A
strategic frame emphasizes the process by which something happens. For instance, putting an
issue frame on the topic of corruption would entail explaining how much corrupt behavior occurs
in a specific country and sector, who the typical culprits are, and so forth. Putting the topic in a
strategic frame would require looking at the roots of corruption, why it occurs, in what forms it
occurs, and what can be done to fight it. In some research studies, strategic framing prompted
cynicism among the audience. News reports that showed the game of politicsstrategic
discussions and arguments between politicians and experts rather than real issuesmade the
audience wearier of both politics and politicians (Cappella and Jamieson 1997).

Conclusion
Media framing is not just a topic to be discussed during class, it is something that affects each
and every one of us and that influences how we make decisions. People might have decided to
support things because of a framed image or ideology, and young girls and boys all over the
world kill themselves on a daily basis because they do not live up to the framed ideal of what
they think they should be, as represented in the media.
We must become more aware of the influence of media upon us, so that we can fight against that
influence and help others to do the same!

References
Baran, S. J. & Davis, D. K. (2009). Mass communication theory: foundations, ferment, and
future (5th edition). Boston, M.A.:Wadsworth cengage learning.
Lane, D. (2001). Agenda Setting Theory. Retrieved from Honors: Communication Capstone
Spring

2001

Theory

Workbook,

online

website:

http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/mass/agenda.htm
University

of

Twente.

(2004).

Framing.

Retrieved

from

http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/ Communication
%20Processes/Framing/