Across the Atlantic, it's a parallel universe when it comes to a focus on framing and its political uses. While here in the States, liberals have decried the use of framing tactics by conservatives to shift the political landscape, it was Tony Blair's New Labour government that is credited with pioneering the use of framing in order to better engage the public. Over the weekend, NPR's On the Media looked back at Blair's communication strategy with his longtime strategist Alastair Campbell. (Note: On the Media now includes a blog like discussion area for each of its segments.)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
On Thursday, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, I served as one of the panelists at the event "The Public Divide over Climate Change: Science, Skeptics and the Media." The two hour session drew roughly 100 attendees, was organized and moderated by Belfer Center fellow Cristine…
Back in February, I traveled to Rome, Italy to present at a conference sponsored by Columbia University's Earth Institute and the Adriano Olivetti Foundation. The focus was on climate change and cities. For the proceedings on that conference, I was asked to contribute a short overview on the…
Our Policy Forum article at Science has generated a monster blog discussion, one that is almost too much to keep up with. I continue to try to keep a summary here with my quick responses, where appropriate. I have also posted several comments at other blogs. I will continue to update as more blog…
In this month's issue of Nature Biotechnology, I join with other authors to suggest several bold new initiatives in science communication and journalism. The Commentary article includes an overview of key issues and trends in the field and closes with a series of specific recommendations.
The…
The point is that, in the long run, it proved totally counterproductive to New Labour efforts to get its message across. Blair leaves office with a 'can you trust him' rating at 22%, and the bitter cynicism of the media towards the government stems from the fact that they no longer believe a word of official media releases - and with good reason. Framing might start out as an attempt to 'better engage the public', but in practice it soon slides downhill into borderline dishonesty. And if people swallow a line that they later discover to be untrue, they will hate you for it. It happens every time.
I agree with Jonathan. In the UK people now regard what you call political 'framing' as vacuous soundbite politics. Indeed Alastair Campbell, the interviewee is about the least trusted of all the public figures in this field, not because he is recognised to be bad at framing but precisely the opposite, he is know as the arch-machiavellian spinner of political 'frames'.
In defense of framing, I would say that it's a communication technology. In the right hands and applied cautiously, it can be used to effectively engage a public and to promote more effective communication. In the wrong hands, it can be used as "false spin."
On an issue such as social welfare, there are lessons to be learned from the language employed by the Blair government. In other matters such as Iraq, obviously the strategic use of language resonates negatively with the extreme distrust and displeasure of the British public with the war.
What got NuLab wasn't the framing, it was the lying. It doesn't matter how good your frame is if you repeatedly get caught telling massive porkies.
There's a big difference between carefully framing a valid argument and carefully weaving a tapestry of lies.
So why did they resort to lies? Because they want to pursue policies which are vehemently oppossed by significant proportions of the electorate. They're anti-democratic.
It seems to me that once a person considers how to change their original thought from their own frame into the frame of the reciever, it is now a much shorter "distance" or apparent cost to take the next step of reducing truthfulness as well because the statement is now outside the originator's frame and their emotional context. But the cost of the falsehood to the sender is actually higher precisely because the statement is now interpreted within the emotional context of the recipient's frame so what seems like a little falsehood to the sender is a big falsehood to the reciever.