STRATEGISTS <----> JOURNALISTS <----> PUBLICS
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is a professor in the School of Communication at American University where his research focuses on the intersections between science, media, and politics. E-MAIL: nisbetmc@gmail.com
« The UN Frames Global Warming as Really about Security | Main | NPR: Are we asking scientists to be advocates? To spin false information? Read the transcript. »
Category: Enviro/Science Reporting
Posted on: April 17, 2007 5:42 PM, by Matthew C. Nisbet
To be honest, I hadn't seen the online program Bloggingheads.tv before. But today they offer a pretty substantive discussion of our Framing Science thesis. Apparently the host agrees with us. His co-host misunderstands our goals for communication and the research on framing and media influence. But that's okay. It's clearly meant to be a point/counter-point. Kind of a Siskel and Ebert of blog commentary. Pretty cool.
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Comments
Well, Henry is a smart guy from one of the top academic blogs in the world. The other guy speaks for Cato Institute so he has an agenda to push.
Posted by: coturnix | April 17, 2007 8:00 PM
if you mean that henry farrell is the 'host,' no, it is a diavlog. the real host is robert wright, but you don't see him. henry & will are equals.
Posted by: razib | April 17, 2007 8:54 PM
Sudden specific thought on the Framing article.
"Messages must be positive and respect diversity."
This is not always true.
This type of message seems fairly worthless for deprogramming the brainwashed. Specifically, respecting diversity is simply used as an excuse to retain the brainwashing. Being "positive" is important but difficult to do, since it's essential to discredit the brainwashers.
Of course, I doubt that any mass media message is useful for deprogramming the brainwashed.
But have no doubt: we are dealing with a lot of genuinely brainwashed people. The brainwashing techniques used by right-wing churches are pretty well documented. Therefore I think that while your arguments are good for reaching the *non-brainwashed* masses, the *brainwashed* require a different approach. What approach, I wonder?
Posted by: Nathanael Nerode | April 18, 2007 1:36 AM