Framing in the Media

     The media's use of ideological framing is a controversial issue; whenever an organization publishes material that can be construed as sympathetic toward any particular ideology or agenda, sparks will fly amongst well-known pundits and watchdog groups. Political reports and messages are especially common targets of criticism: we have all heard that organizations such as The Wall Street Journal or Fox News frame subject matter in a way that is sympathetic toward politically conservative ideologies, and likewise that organizations such as The New York Times or MSNBC do the opposite, framing their material in a way that promotes a politically liberal agenda. It is my personal view that this use of framing can indeed occur on both sides, and that a common tactic of framing is this: for an organization to portray its political opponents as alien and disconnected from the viewer/audience.
     When publishing any kind of material, whether it be newspaper articles, television reports, advertisements, or artwork, the creators consider who their target audience is, and this is an important aspect to consider when framing such material. If organizations know who they are addressing, then it is clearer how they should make their audience think about the issue at hand, and which side the audience will most likely take. Therefore, what organizations often attempt is to establish one side as the 'norm' - the side that the audience recognizes as their own familiar ideological base - and then to depict the opposing force as the 'oddball' - a position that the audience will not understand, and thus not support. In doing so, organizations can keep their ideological influence over the audience; rather than have the audience wander away from whatever particular belief is desired, the media continues to paint heroes and villains in the picture, thus cementing and immortalizing the various 'sides' that have risen over time.
     As I have mentioned, this can occur with any number of ideological beliefs and agendas, but as an example, I have selected an article written by the Associated Press, which, in my personal view, seems to portray a Republican economic strategy as bizarre and alien. This article explains that John Boehner, the House Republican leader, advises against tax increases for the wealthy during the recession; the article's subtitle clarifies this position, saying 'He considers it "bad policy"'. The use of quotation marks is central to the argument I am making; by placing Boehner's words in quotation marks as part of the subtitle (and once again at the beginning of the actual article), the Associated Press is conveying to the audience that Boehner's position is strange and unfamiliar. The article later reports that one of President Obama's chief economic advisers is happy that Boehner is willing to politically compromise; in the article's words, that he 'isn't willing to hold hostage an extension of tax cuts.' This particular selection of words is critical; the words 'hold hostage' characterize Boehner as a stubborn and perhaps even threatening figure due to his political agenda, and for those who would indeed oppose Boehner's political ideas, these words solidify the concept that Boehner's ideology is foreign.
     I would like to reiterate that such ideological framing can occur in any number of places; it is not the sole hobby of the Associated Press, nor is it limited to alienating Republican politicians. However, I feel that this article is a good example of such influential alienation; by establishing one side as logical and familiar, and the other side as questionable and foreign, the article can easily control how readers consider the issue.


Here is a link to the AP article, which I discovered on msnbc.com:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39131165/ns/politics/