Difference between revisions of "Interpretive framing"

Revision as of 14:40, 22 January 2011

Overview

Interpretive framing, also known as political framing or just framing, is a rhetorical device in which a complex issue is explained in simpler terms chosen to emphasize certain aspects of the issue and downplay others. It is typically used as a form of rhetorical deception, though it can be used non-deceptively (see Legitimate Uses).

It is a cousin to the emotional argument in that it favors viewing the argument in simplistic terms – which are typically emotionally-weighted, although they do not have to be – rather than examining every detail to the greatest possible extent. In other words, it is arational at best and can be used for anti-rational purposes.

It is also related to the Overton window, another rhetorical device that essentially frames a discussion in terms of two "opposites" which both represent the side the speaker wants to bolster, coloring any alternative views (especially sensible ones) as "extreme" or "fringe" options which nobody takes seriously and setting up issue-neophytes to fall right into the fallacy of moderation. [1]

Example

A fairly simple usage can be seen in CNN's interpretation of their own poll results (see page 2): 39% of respondents favored an action (Obamacare) and 13% thought it didn't go far enough, giving a total of 52% who presumably favored the action over no action at all.

Since the debate at the time was "should we take this action at all?" rather than "is this action sufficient?", clearly those 13% should have been counted as being in favor. CNN, however, added them to the 43% who opposed any action and reported that "59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill."

Legitimate Uses

The only justifiable use of this technique seems to be when an issue has already been framed in terms that are unfair; an alternate framing may make it easier to see this unfairness, especially for those not inclined to look past the surface. However, this is generally playing to the strengths of those who would distort the truth rather than seek it, and does not really resolve anything.

Related Pages

The effectiveness of interpretive framing is probably best explained by memetic theory.
A poorly-chosen interpretive frame can lead to a false dilemma.

Links

Reference

Wikipedia

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 It is also related to the [[Overton window]], another rhetorical device that essentially frames a discussion in terms of two "opposites" which both represent the side the speaker wants to bolster, coloring any alternative views (especially sensible ones) as "extreme" or "fringe" options which nobody takes seriously and setting up issue-neophytes to fall right into the [[fallacy of moderation]]. [http://www.correntewire.com/the_overton_window_illustrated]
+===Example===
+A fairly simple usage can be seen in [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-americans-dont-like-health-care-bill/?fbid=1AOWVNbJBup CNN's interpretation] of [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf their own poll results] (see page 2): 39% of respondents favored an action (Obamacare) and 13% thought it didn't go far enough, giving a total of 52% who presumably favored the action over no action at all.
+Since the debate at the time was "should we take this action at all?" rather than "is this action sufficient?", clearly those 13% should have been counted as being in favor. CNN, however, added them to the 43% who opposed any action and reported that "59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill."
 ===Legitimate Uses===
 The only justifiable use of this technique seems to be when an issue has already been framed in terms that are unfair; an alternate framing may make it easier to see this unfairness, especially for those not inclined to look past the surface. However, this is generally playing to the strengths of those who would distort the truth rather than seek it, and does not really resolve anything.