THIS on news and "Tactical Framing"
Mar. 14th, 2019 05:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osewalrushttps://www.vox.com/videos/2019/3/12/18261856/green-new-deal-tactical-framing-aoc
This Vox piece explains how political journalism increases our cynicism and promotes partisan gridlock by covering everything through "tactical framing." (video here) Tactical framing means focusing on the political aspects of a bill or issue -- will it pass, is it good for Republicans, is it good for Democrats-- rather than anything about the substance. i.e., so what the impact of the bill is, what problem is it trying to solve, how does it go about trying to solve that problem.
In their book Spiral of Cynicism Joseph Capella and Kathleen Hall Jamieson (she is interviewed a bunch in the piece) describe the results of their research into tactical framing. Turns out even if you include some substantive information in an overall tactical frame of the debate, the impact of tactical framing is to increase both cynicism and partisanship (since everyone is lying, I go with my team). By contrast, when people were given substantive stories, they were much more likely to become engaged.
This is pretty much one of the things we were worried about 20 years ago in media reform. While we have always had some tactical framing analysis, the shift in the last 30 or so years in news coverage has been to almost completely eliminate substantive coverage and shift entirely to tactical framing. There are lots of reasons for that, which I won't get into now. But the impact on our democracy is fairly devastating.
Also of note, this is a "traditional media" problem not a "new media/social media" problem. Fox News and other traditional media outlets were using the "attention triggers" of conflict and extreme rhetoric to attract viewers/readers well before Facebook was even invented.
This Vox piece explains how political journalism increases our cynicism and promotes partisan gridlock by covering everything through "tactical framing." (video here) Tactical framing means focusing on the political aspects of a bill or issue -- will it pass, is it good for Republicans, is it good for Democrats-- rather than anything about the substance. i.e., so what the impact of the bill is, what problem is it trying to solve, how does it go about trying to solve that problem.
In their book Spiral of Cynicism Joseph Capella and Kathleen Hall Jamieson (she is interviewed a bunch in the piece) describe the results of their research into tactical framing. Turns out even if you include some substantive information in an overall tactical frame of the debate, the impact of tactical framing is to increase both cynicism and partisanship (since everyone is lying, I go with my team). By contrast, when people were given substantive stories, they were much more likely to become engaged.
This is pretty much one of the things we were worried about 20 years ago in media reform. While we have always had some tactical framing analysis, the shift in the last 30 or so years in news coverage has been to almost completely eliminate substantive coverage and shift entirely to tactical framing. There are lots of reasons for that, which I won't get into now. But the impact on our democracy is fairly devastating.
Also of note, this is a "traditional media" problem not a "new media/social media" problem. Fox News and other traditional media outlets were using the "attention triggers" of conflict and extreme rhetoric to attract viewers/readers well before Facebook was even invented.
no subject
Date: 2019-03-19 05:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-03-19 05:40 pm (UTC)https://wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/we-need-to-fix-media-not-just-social-media-part-iii/
Then we go back and break up the big television group owners.
Warren has had some good ideas in the past, although I don't 100% agree with her media policy.
no subject
Date: 2019-03-20 01:36 am (UTC)