(Please welcome author Jeffrey Feldman to the FDL Book Salon in the comments — JH)
Some people may say that Iraq is the most important issue of the day, others may say it is energy, or civil rights, or more abstract issues such as globalization. However, it seems form here that the most important issue of the age is how the other issues are to be resolved; are we to continue to have what Jay Rosen of Press Think calls "The ghost of Democracy in the Media Age" and the consumer politics of the past, or will we have a participatory politics where the free give and take in every sector of society produces a far richer conversation that ballistic attack ads before scripted events.
If this is the case, that the most important issue is what kind of society we are to have, then Jeffrey Feldman's short Framing the Debate is musket of this new revolution, in a short contained book, he arms the militia of the public, against the mercenary media world which surrounds them.
When Jeffery first began posting on the Daily Kos as an ordinary diarist, his "This phrase has been recalled" was an instant hit, by taking the experts view, and breaking down complex points into clear language, he gave people things to do, and words to avoid. By placing the frame of a public service announcement, his posts created an urgency to improve the language that has not been felt since George Orwell's famous essay on political euphemism over a generation ago. No one in the blogosphere has been more devoted to the cause of giving us a purer and clearer language to conduct politics in than he.
In itself this might make him one of a long line of syntax and diction mavens, a kind of later day Michael Kinsley. However, what became clearer over the course of time was that he didn't simply want a cleaner political language, but a different political conversation. A conversation where the basic structure of debate is not determined in small rooms of sweating political operatives, and then pumped out through the vast organs of the old top down media, reinforced by seeding chatter to create the illusion of public reaction – but one where every individual was as control of how the debate was waged as could be made possible.
The basic thrust of his book is simple – most decisions are not decided. Instead, the frame around them is created, often by emotion, or rhetoric, and within that frame, decisions are decided. Other futures might have been, but they were boxed out by the series of almost unspoken requirements and comparisons.
A frame then is often more important than the final decision. In law how a problem is framed often decides the case – is it property rights or civil rights? In logic there are time honored mechanisms for debating the frame. However, until now, what there was not, was a break down of how frames were constructed, and how ordinary citizens could wage the frame battle. He takes a series of landmark speeches – and looks at it from the perspective, not of the context, or merely the political objective, but in the means by which the entire course of the debate is set by the basic foundation of discussion. This foundation is the frame, and once established, frames are more difficult to break. However they are not set in concrete. By taking such speeches as the Gettysburg Address, and showing how the forces that frame a debate are in play, he shows how the hard stone of foundation becomes liquid.
Most importantly however, each point has a means by which ordinary individuals, not empowered by privilege or power or position, can effective mold, shape, and when need be shatter, the frame that boxes their vision, and the vision of those around them. He analyzes the word power of the Republican Revolution from the perspective of frame – how Newt used words which were just barely on the acceptably neutral side of negative, allowing small negative impressions to create a larger picture.
This then, is no monumental scholarly tome to lie dusty on a shelf, nor is it a facile examination filled with kool-aid swilling hype. Instead, it is the New Politics for Dummies – the book we all ought to read, in the same way we all ought to know how to drive a car, or use a cellphone. This is because, as the book makes clear, frames really are all around us, and either we are the masters of them, or they are the masters of us.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Hillary Rettig, The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Chris Mooney, Unscientific America
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Matthew Kerbel, Netroots: Online Progressives and the Transformation of American Politics
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes, Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Eric Boehlert, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

How do you get into FDL Book Salon? I don’t see a link. Thanks
Thanks so much to Stirling for that fantastic introduction–and to everyone at FDL for having me as a guest. I look forward to the discussion…
Thanks Stirling, and welcome Jeffrey. As always in book salon, please keep comments on topic. If you want to talk OT, feel free to do so in the previous thread.
Black Ice says Hi from Lower Manhattan. We’d say “first” but Phil and the others are against the First’ers.
Great book Jeffrey. Now that the book has been published any speeches you regret not putting in the book?
Hey Jeffrey,
I haven’t had a chance to get too far into the book yet, but have already given copies to a couple of friends and have ordered more to pass out to others
Kombiz @ 3
The constraint I put on myself was speeches given by Presidents while they were in office. Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech was one I wish he had given while in office. Another was Johnson’s address announcing he would not seek the nomination. There is something about the way Johnson spoke that made me want to fill the whole book just with his words.
Susan S @ 4
Thanks, Susan!
I was amused that you used Richard Nixon’s resignation speech to underscore the difference between “framing” and “spin.”
Good choice.
Jeffrey Feldman @ 2
Hi Jeffrey. Welcome. I have not yet read your book but I have heard you speak on Thom Hartmann’s program and I think that our Dem leaders need to hear what you are saying.
What is the difference between framing and spin?
Texas Betsy @
We all do, the leadership lives in a world of frames as much as ordinary people. Iraq happened because the reasonable options were framed out, and only two unreasonable options were left. If leaders are to be able to act, it will be more and more because ordinary people have forced reasonable choices into the frame, and pushed unreasonable ones out.
This is sort of why I suggested on the previous thread that Bush needs an Occupation Czar and not a War Czar. Seems to make it more apparent (and truthful) what we are doing over in Iraq.
cleter @ 10
From the book, p. 119:
“Good framing in a speech prunes away the distractions so that the vision grows fuller and more vibrant, giving the listener a better chance to appreciate the ideas being expressed. Spin, by contrast, distracts the listener through misdirection.”
cleter @ 10
In a word, framing is honest communication, spin is not.
Spin seeks to deceive in order to sell. You want mothers to by cigarettes for their children? You need spin.
Framing is an ongoing practice of engaging ideas through words, understanding the big picture concepts those words invoke, then taking control of how those ideas are crafted and discussed. In the book, I also add an extra dimension to what I feel should be at the core of progressive framing: grounding that work in the history of American rhetoric and ideas.
Jane Hamsher @ 13
Thanks Jane!
hello mr feldman and welcome to FDL and the book salon
Your new book appears to be a must read and thanks for being here today.
Do you plan to do a national tour anytime in the near future?
I’m amazed at how easily the Republicans can still invoke a frame. They’ve relentlessly used the term “at the pleasure of the president” to the point that the new revelation about Bush being directly involved in the Inglesias firing will be taken as the normal way of doing business.
Thanks.
Stirling Newberry @ 11
That’s right. This is why I place so much emphasis in the book on framing as political participation–not just communication. By participating in the framing of Iraq, we not only speak back to the policy, but we redefine the terrain.
Welcome, Jeffrey, and thanks for all your good work! Hope this question isn’t too broad…
How much have Democrats improved, re: the framing issue, in the past year or two? And is there a particular aspect they especially need to work on, yet? Any example that comes to mind?
newspaperbrat @ 17
Tour details are listed on Frameshop.
If you don’t see your town on the list, but would like a visit–just post a comment in the schedule thread and we’ll see what we can do to set something up.
ah yes mr feldman i like your point on difference between spin and framing a speech…..
Hey, Jeffrey!
Two questions for you:
1. One of the things that was very striking to me in your book was how openly moralistic the speeches were, sometimes invoking religious language, other times not. I assume that that was at least in part as a result of your selection, but it was still interesting. Do you have any sense of what it is that drives presidents to use their bully pulpits as, well, pulpits?
2. Have you gotten any better reviews of the book recently?
Jeffrey it would appear that the war in Iraq and the “dispensable” 650,ooo Iraqi people that are now dead due to our invasion, Iraqi’s injured (we do not count) and the 2 million displaced all ready define what kind of society we all ready have in the U.S.
The reality is that most Americans could give a damn about people living outside our borders and I believe that this why so many people around the globe fear us.
The evidence for reasons to fear us are as solid as Iraq.
Can we change this I don’t know? Can we make Americans care? I don’t know.
CD @ 21
They’ve improved this much (I’m indicating the distance between my thumb and index finger). It’s improvement, but not much. Dems in office by and large still believe that facts can hold arguments.
I believe the biggest gains can be made in healthcare and foreign policy. In healthcare, I believe we should be reaching back to FDR to talk in terms of a “New Deal” for American health and well-being–a way of thinking about heathcare policy not defined by economic arguments.
In foreign policy, Democrats must be more explicit at defining a “smart and strong” worldview. I was, however, pleased to see Richardson and Obama both make great gains in this direction during their MoveOn town hall statements.
i’m always behind on reading new books so i must add this book to my library but i love the reason for it – the problem in my mind has always been too much spin and not enough critical thinking allowing us to buried in crises after crises unfortunately…….
Republicans seem uniquely privileged to cancel a questioner’s frame (Cheney: “I reject the premise of your question, Wolf.”) I appreciate that your book addresses speeches and not interviews, but can you comment on how that privilege-to-reject is attained, and whether our team can get ahold of it, ever?
Thanks to the author and the salonist for this discussion….
Jeffrey Feldman @ 26
OK. Now I know what my Amazon gift certificate is going to! Thanks!
pastordan @ 24
We hear the moralism in many of those past speeches, I think, because of the styles are a bit strange to us. We notice it because of the different writing/speaking styles. But I think Presidential rhetoric is a medium unto itself and is always marked by a heightened use of moralism.
Still waiting for that star review–although the NYT review did generate a great deal of interest and requests.
Welcome to Mr. Feldman, but also let me offer my congratulations to Stirling Newberry for that outstanding introduction. I have not read this book, but I have been thoroughly convinced that I should.
Comments on Webb’s response to the SOTU?
TeddySanFran @ 28
Great question.
The power to reject the premise of a question is not a privilege, but a habit.
Democrats need to develop the habit of what I call “stealing the ball” in a debate–forcefully grabbing the key terms in a conversation and saying, “That is not what they mean, that is not what we are talking about. This is.”
When I give this advice to a roomfull of people during a workshop, people always chuckle–but it’s almost as important as the theory behind framing itself.
Cheney has very good debate habits–almost never passing up a chance to steal the ball.
Hi Jeffrey,
Sorry, I don’t have the book yet, but what speeches do you include in the book?
One speech off the top of my head that I think every Democratic candidate should read and/or listen to over and over again as far as framing who they are and what they believe is JFK’s speech for the Liberal Party nomination in 1960 audio here
Or RFK’s Tiny Ripple of Hope Speech (I know he wasn’t a President but …)
GordonM @
32
Good question.
I witnessed the “God, Gay and Guns” frame work just enough in southeastern Ohio to tilt the 2004 election. One thing that I noticed as I knocked on endless doors in this part of Ohio, the old union workers (people over 50) were not as effected by the framing. Many of them could cut through the BushRoveshit rather easily.
When I asked many of these older union folks why younger people were so effected by this manipulative and effective framing, they attributed their own personal awareness to UNIONS. Collective bargaining, group efforts and discussions about politics.
Do you think all people of all ages are equally effected by this sophisticated framing? Or are some more vulnerable?
GordonM @ 32
Webb’s response was powerful because he broke the rule that Senators must be polite. Quite often, political debate is governed by unspoken rules of civility that, among other things, tend to dampen dissent. By speaking back as he did, Webb was able to take control of the discussion after the SOTU. I bet Bush was more angry after that response than at just about any time during his reign.
Hi Jeffrey –
I’m looking forward to your participation in the Presidential candidate panel at yearlykos. Are you planning to raise, explicitly, the issue of framing and narrative in that setting?
mr feldman – how can the dems improve upon always coming up short and defensive in the public discourse – i hope i’m not repeating something that has been addressed earlier
I can answer kathleen @ 36 – when you’re over 50, you’re no longer hormonally compelled to give a crap what others think. Thank God.
Dr. Feldman:
While I was looking up the book at Amazon a moment ago (to put in a purchase request for the local library), I was intrigued to note that you are a cultural anthropologist by trade. I’m an archaeologist myself, but the difference in subfield notwithstanding, I’d be very interested to know what you think about how your academic background has informed this book, and how anthropologists in general can use their knowledge to improve the political discourse.
Jeffrey Feldman @ 37
He also spoke with passion. This is something that Glenn Greenwald has written about more than once, that people respond to passion–and I would add, authenticity. It’s why i think that Feingold is so effective and why, for example, Lieberman is not. Webb was clearly speaking from the heart. That penetrates people’s consciousness in a way that a more wonky, crafted presentation like Kerry’s does not.
To some degree this also works for Bush. He’s better at faking authenticity than his opponents were.
kathleen @ 36
I respect the response of the “older union folks” you spoke with, but I suspect it is not age that’s the factor but participation in a deliberative body.
In the conclusion of the book, I equate progressivism with participation and authoritarianism with control. Those who are able to engage debate and frame ideas in their own terms are those participating in the institutions that constitute a deliberative democracy–unions being one of those. Those most susceptible to the PR machine of the Republicans would be those who have given themselves over to authoritarian institutions that dictate ideas without any participatory deliberation.
It’s great to hear that even though unions are in trouble in many places they still imbue their members with the critical skills that result from participation in the public square.
Jeffrey Feldman @ 22
Thanks Dr. Feldman – I left a late but proper invitation to you in the comments on frameshop. We central coasters will just keep our fingers crossed you can somehow schedule an appearance here in the provinces. ;~)
Jeffrey Feldman @ 37
Webb cut to the bone during his response to the SOTU. He challenged the chickenhawks when he talked about how his father had served how he and his brother had served. Yet how he had well thought out questions about the wisdom of invading Iraq and the wisdom of staying. He drew the line in the sand and stood firm with honesty and with the fact that he had put his own ass on the line. This cuts through all of the fancy framing.
And now he has put forth legislation S 759 to further challenge the Bush administrations agenda in Iran. Not much framing just some straight talk and facts. The American people are hungry for the Webbs in congress
Jeffrey, thanks for letting us all have this conversation. Just ordered from Amazon, looking forward to it.
Hi Stirling, so honored to have you here, too.
Jeffrey, my dad used to write speeches for Pat Brown. Things were a lot more simple then, I think…Tho I wasn’t looking for frames at the time , it seems both sides had a similar frame back in the day, instead of the diametrically opposed frames presented today. True or false?
In general, does one lose the truth or immediacy of one’s claim when trying to fit it into a frame? I worry about that. Just arriving, so it may have been asked and answered already.
I’ll take my answer off the air…
EvilDrPuma @ 41
Thanks so much for this question.
All people engaged in academic work can use their skills too improve political discourse by stepping out of the classroom, department and profession to participate directly in American politics.
I use the same skills in my book that I use when I teach, but the big change was my decision to participate everyday in politics–every single day. I do that largely through blogging.
Many academics believe they are contributing to politics by virtue of the ideas they engage, but they overlook the importance of actually engaging with the day-to-day of politics. It’s a point I repeat often.
Thanks so much for asking.
Jeffrey, a great honor to have you here at FDL.
Mr Feldman, I am confused by
Lyndon Johnson gave his excellent “I shall not seek and will not accept” speech from the Oval on 3/31/68. That part of his speech gave me chills at the time — the earth was shifting.
Curious whether the work of Bandler & Grinder (of NLP fame) had anything to do with your (or Lakoff’s) work on framing. Of course, NLP was largely hijacked by hucksters teaching salesman to be even bigger creeps, but those 2 were fascinating.
Mommybrain @ 46
Lakoff writes a great deal about people having several broad frames in their head–and about importance for speech writers of invoking both sides of the equation. In my work I tend to stay at more of a tactical level because I believe those broader ideas require a team to develop, which I don’t have at the moment.
I don’t know that we were less polarized in our thinking in the past write large. Degree of polarization tends to relate to historical context. I suspect the great periods of polarized thinking for speech writers were the mid-1960s, the 1930s, and the 1860s.
What fun to have a speech writer for a dad!
Jeffrey Feldman @
6
Jeffrey:
Can you say whether or not Bill Moyers crafted some or all of the words that Johnson spoke? I bring that up because so much of presidential history consists of the speeches presidents make, and much of that are words written by someone else. To me, this gets into the area of “framing the message.”
GordonM @ 50
Because I am trained as a social scientist with expertise context-based interpretive analysis, I tend not to draw on the NLP literature. Nonetheless, I know NLP has been very useful, for example, to people working with autistic children. S I respect theN NLP scholarship even if it’s something I don’t draw upon in my own writing.
IMVHO, the “framing” of the “occupation” in Iraq as a “war” really helps the Bush administration. The word “war” helps “carry the water” for the administration. Unfortunately, that usage dishonors other conflicts which really were “wars” and hides that we are just a common “imperialist” occupier of a foreign country.
As a deconstructionist, I am delighted to see your book on the market. I have linked to it (and this discussion) from my humble blog.
I’ll delurk for a second…. Living in Canada and watching & listening to MSM in the USA..the fact is that the Repubs are exquisite at I would have said framing debates.. people seem to have no idea their viewpoint is being shaded and moulded by the actual phrasing of the debates.
John Casper @ 54
This is absolutely correct.
i for one prefer everyone to speak to me in a clear and precise manner – nevermind trying to say spmething they think i want to hear – and allow me to sort it all out in my own way – framing the discourse intelligently sans “spin” plus believing what you are saying…..
IIRC, he was quoting William (March to Atlanta during US Civil War) Sherman.
dreamcatcher @ 52
I don’t have the specifics of Moyer’s work for Johnson at hand (maybe an FDL reader can answer that), but I do appreciate the question.
I made a choice in the book not to discuss the speech writers, although there was material to that effect in earlier drafts. FTD tries, in this respect, to focus on presidential speeches as historic moments of political performance experienced by the public–as opposed to historic documents. But the writers are the missing players in my story, no doubt.
Hopefully, in a future project, I’ll be able to return to that aspect.
jang @ 56
Yes, the Republicans are past masters at this: their art is to lie and make the lies sound reasonable by, as you call it, exquisite framing. A perfect example in the news right now is to turn their efforts at franchise suppression into “fighting voter fraud.”
Though I get the conceptual difference, I am still confused as to the real world difference between “frame” and “spin”, since all the Republican frames seem like spin to me. Such as “The War on Terror”. Within this “spin” they can “frame” the issue as “we are not safe” but they will “protect us”, are “strong fathers” etc.
In other words, it seems to me that the Republicans are so much better at stealing the ball because they collapse the meaning between spin and frame. They invent reality–which is spin.
Meantime, the Democrats who still are so poor at framing or ball stealing, are always trying to learn framing–i.e figure out the true nature of the situation and how to present it.
In politics it seems we are trying to fight spin with frame. And not able to catch up. Pelosi’s “treasonous” trip for example. Why does spin seem to trump frame? Hope my question here is clear.
Duccio @ 62
In part because of how the media report it.
Mr. Feldman,
I am so tired of interviews of pols. Nothing of importance ever gets said. These days I listen only to see which way the spin is blowing.
I am convinced the whole framework would improve if the interviewer, after two unsuccessful attemps to elicit information, were to politiely say, “I’ll note for the record you did not answer the question,” and go on to the next subject. I think it would not take very long before pols would start being more forthcoming once that point was put upon it.
Of course, corporate media types wouldn’t dare take such a tack, but perhaps bloggers’ progress into the heart of the political debate will help.
Duccio @ 62
It seems the dominance of the conservative-owned media industry has a great deal to do with the ability of the Republican message to get a foothold. Democrats still do not have anything that compares to the reach of, say, Limbaugh or the FOX News weekly schedule. So there is a unity of message that can charge into the public mind from the right in a way that it simply cannot from the Left.
It will take slow gains and long term building to turn back that dynamic, but at least we’ve started.
How do we frame the present, some say coming, recession into the Big Picture?
The MSM must be reluctant to burden a wobbly economy with significant White House scandals — in the middle of a war.
Duccio @ 62
I think part of this, certainly, is that the Repugs are appealing to some of the basest instincts in human beings–that they are not just making emotional appeals by their choice of language, but are pushing some subconscious buttons, as well. What is demonstrably false on the conscious level of fact interpretation may still affect the voters in ways that feel to them to be true.
Are the mass of people so shallow and mindless not see the fact that these frames and spin are paper thin?
Are we a nation of idiots? The Firepups see the BS a mile away. Are they a special breed of human?
When have we heard as moving a frame as Kennedy’s “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?”
I thought Webb touched this note during his response to the Sotu.
Dr. Feldman,
Is there anything we can do to better prepare the message for the Representatives? Most of our respresentatives seem so overmatched in DC against the right wing noise machine. They either don’t know, or forget salient points during a debate. They lie down like dogs a lot of the time when attacked. Is the corporate controlled, so called mainstream media trying to kneecap Democrats and Progressives?
DefJef @ 68
Not at all. We are not a nation of idiots in any way. But frames are not “thin” in the sense of being simplistic or stupid. Even working on framing everyday, I often find myself taking the wrong tack right into conservative logic and wording.
If FDL readers are able to wrestle with conservative framing better than average, that’s likely a product of their daily engagement with the work.
PLovering @
66
That brings up a good point, Jeffrey — are there issues that you see we need to get in front of, rather than being purely responsive?
thanks to the “blogosphere” there is a place to get progressive talking points in the air – but does it compare with having faux news and right-wing radio in reaching folks? the debate is still being framed by repugs and right-wing radio
I Love Jane Hamsher @ 70
Great question.
For the framing we do as citizens and activists to reach our representatives, we need bridge builders who shuttle back and forth between the world of grassroots participation and the deliberative bodies run by our elected officials.
Right here on FDL you have many people who have worked tirelessly to build those bridges–and my advice would be to follow their lead on specific framing that they are working to bring to elected officials. With those channels built (and it’s thankless work, so we should say thank you as often as possible)–our framing work actually does “get to” people in Congress–as well as state and city government.
Oh and BTW, congratulations on getting “Fairbanksed,” Jeffrey. Looks like Nancy Pelosi gets the honors now.
A recent example of frame-to-spin, with a big assist from TradMed, was the reporting (by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, among others) of Senator Carl Levin’s misspeak last weekend in response to an “after the veto” question. Levin was, I think, trying to use the “of course we support the troops” chestnut, but he got played. Richard Wolffe on Countdown charged that Levin (and by extension, Senate Dems) were showing their hand. For a while, early in the week, it looked like we’d lost the frame of “tough Dems who won’t blink.” Reid and Pelosi, I think, re-took the ball by refusing the President’s invite to his OBEY ME! party.
This is why I think rejecting the premise of the question is training our leaders and spokespeople should be steeped in. Incidentally, Cliff Schecter and Markos are very good at rejecting the premise.
Your book’s on my Amazon ship-list; I’ll need one more for SuperSaver shipping, but it’ll be here soon! Thanks again for joining us today.
Not sure of Salon rules, but in answer to the question about NLP which, of course, stands for Neuro-Linguistic Programing, both Grinder and Bandler learned how to deconstruct language and events, from the linguist, Noam Chomsky as did Lakoff.
The common root is therefore Chomsky. As I understand it.
DefJef @ 68
Most Americans get their news through TV news sound bites. It is the equivalent of intellectual fast food. It is passive and requires no effort, least of all intellectual effort. Not that Americans are dumb, but that they are all preoccupied with getting through the day, and have no time for getting news in depth.
And of course, the media and spinners know this and take advantage of it. Rove and company were able to sell the Iraq war knowing this. The runup to the war was essentially a marketing operation, as Ari Fleischer famously said.
A place where we don’t have a good frame is universal health care–an issue that is very ripe right now among the rank and file. How can we reverse the frame that says that europeans and canadians have lousy health care? That negative frame works because there is a natural inclination for Americans to assume that the US is number one in every important area. How can we get past the year long wait for hip replacement in Canada canard?
PLovering @ 66
We are in a precarious position economically, but I think one way to frame it would be to draw on the idea of “balance” used by Eisenhower in his farewell speech to the nation (1961, Chapter 9 in the book “Balance in Progress”). Eisenhower’s speech was prophetic, but the key to his thinking is his idea that American will never make progress if our policies, industries and thinking invest too much in single-solution thinking. No economy can be built solely on a stock book or a housing boom. We must always be seeking balance, broad investment, equality of opportunity.
So, not being an economist, that is the narrative I would want to see moving forward.
Jeffrey. How much of the Bush adminstration’s “compassionate conservatism” can the world and our nation take? HOw do you spin 650,ooo dead Iraqi people, who knows how many our injured, 2 million displaced, 3200 dead Americans and 50,ooo injured.
I want the Masters of Spin spun out of
existance!
Jeffrey do you think people around the world are able to see the spin and framing more clearly than Americans who are caught within the spin machine?
juslin @ 73
I think of the blogosphere as having influence in this present moment and over time. Blogs do have incredible push in particular stories. But also, in five years, many more of the people we see only in the blogs will also be in the mainstream media (or what it has become). So FOX is influential, but that influence is always being challenged from the netroots which shifts the larger question of who holds the debate.
jayackroyd @ 79
I think you may want to rethink this. Is the belief that Europeans and Canadians have lousy health care out there because of a frame, or because of spin? I think it’s pretty clear that it’s a fundamentally dishonest assertion, which in Dr. Feldman’s terms takes it immediately out of the realm of framing.
Duccio @ 77
Thanks. I didn’t understand the acronym either, although I did learn about Chomsky’s transformational grammar in college.
dreamcatcher @ 78
A very blatent marketing operation, to those with any smidgeon of mass media training. Of which i am one person. It shocked me that they started on the one year anniversary of 9/11. It was so brazen and arrogant! I swore at the tv that day, i couldn’t believe it.
Jane Hamsher @ 75
LOL Thanks!! What a hoot that was. But I get my chance to punch back in next week’s NYT (Apr 22).
Recognising that the Repubs frame or spin actually creates the storyboard of an issue, then the key words used by MSM in future debate are actually chosen by Repubs to favour Repubs.
“Axis of Evil, “Winning the Hearts and Minds”, “Shock and Awe”, “Your either with us or against us”
I think the polls and the 2006 election clearly demonstrate that the American people have had it with the horseshit spin.
Jeffrey do you think at some point the spin does not work? That people want cut to the bone and heart felt statmemnts like Webbs?
Jeffrey Feldman @ 82
I believe that the blogosphere has far more influence upon the young than CNN or Fox Noise.
kathleen @ 88
Oh I hope people are seeing through all that. AND the names of projects like Clean Skies.
Jeffrey Feldman @ 82
So blogs are a new type of “deliberative body”?
jayackroyd @ 79
Conservatives have always been successful in framing health care as “socialized medicine” and those words brings us perilously close to “communism” which was as much of a national fear in its day as terrorism is today. However, when health care is privatized, that is acting in the spirit of “capitalism” and that is fine, no matter how bad the abuse is by the health care industry.
In other words, we are still in thrall over the distinction between “communism” and “capitalism” even though those terms are hardly ever openly debated anymore. They have become part of the national consciousness. So this is another kind of framing, where the terms become embedded in our subconscious, and governs how we respond to events.
kathleen @ 81
Fascinating question.
I think people in other countries by and large get their impression of Bush from journalists writing in their own languages. So it’s hard for me to comment, being that I don’t keep up much with journalism outside the U.S. But in my experience having lived for many years in Italy, I can say that Italians tend to see Bush in very simplistic terms in stark contrast to Republican spin–as uncultured, trigger happy, stupid. At the same time, they tend to see their own leaders through spin provided by their noise machine. So no country’s political culture is immune.
Jeffrey would you call blogs a new type of “deliberative body”?
kathleen @ 88
Often the drama of a political moment can lift the debate out of its routine, thereby allowing us to see things in a way we perhaps could not just a few minutes prior. I think the Webb response was one such instance. Cindy Sheehan’s early protests were another. So, there are instances where the debate “gets framed” not by design, but by passionate moments. The hired guns catch up quickly, though.
aliasofwestgate @ 85
And that brings us to a couple of tidbits that could be used to the progressive benefit but usually aren’t. First, we know that BushCo looks at every issue as a marketing operation. Some of those operations have worked better than others (the Social Security reform marketing was a miserable flop; so was the 2006 election marketing), but these people actually approach everything from the same limited perspective. That means that with a little imagination, progressives could run rings around them at every turn. Look at the famous “Kiss Float”–a bit of utterly unmarketing-like guerrilla activism that I would call stunningly successful, no matter who finally won the CT Senate election.
Second, it should be clear enough by now that there is no point in trying to predict what tactic will be too utterly egregious for BushCo. No such thing exists; they are entirely without shame. And we can use that. Don’t try to imagine what they would think is too much and say you don’t have to worry about that–just try to imagine the most egregious abuse of reason, good taste, or common decency you can think of, and assume they’ll do it and try to sell it as candy. Then prepare for that outcome.
I see framing creeping into Canada by the Conservative Govt. People will get sandbagged here just the same as in the USA. It is as if honesty is gone from debate because unless the viewer is aware of the con of the “frame” it is like a subliminal message few can see. Watching from up here though, Jim Webb takes charge of debate (ie he doesn’t fall for the framed discussion), both he and Nancy Pelosi are very effective in counteracting Repub frames.
jayackroyd @
38
We plan to elicit questions that are most important to the netroots–so if framing is up there, we will include a question.
If all goes as planned, we will have a bunch of sessions online to get questions. Stay tuned for more on that in the months ahead.
IMHO – it seems to me that kids today arent taught how to think clearly and for intent – thus the spin is believed – its the reason bushco has been able to bamboozle certain of the public – MSM has been co-opted by corporate interests with gov’t permission….we cannot simply rely on MSM for news so we come to the web for information and i for one am glad its here – unfortunately we all dont have access to alternative media – and with all the spin on how well the “economy” is doing – what world are the “pundits” living in? its all “spin spin spin”
kathleen @
94
I would call blogs deliberative bodies, even though they are not constitutionally defined. Participation in blogs is the most striking innovation in American deliberative democracy in my lifetime.
Jeffrey Feldman @ 95
No insult to Cindy Sheehan I respect that she finally made it out on the streets, and I am deeply sorry for her loss. Although I have far more respect for the millions of Americans and people around the world who came out on the streets prior to the invasion to save other peoples lives.
Cindy and Code pink did some of their own spinning, by claiming that the anti-war movement began and ended with Cindy. I believe this was not only an insult to the millions who protested, e-mailed, lobbied prior to the invasion but made Cindy look arrogant in some ways. Always wise to acknowledge those who have all ready been there, this unites and gives a movement more strength.
The Internet ought to help overturn the old top-down dynamic. Unless, of course, the usual economic and political elites figure out how to run the Internet in a top-down fashion. I have no doubt that they will be working 24/7 at the task…
Jeffrey Feldman @ 74
GordonM @ 40
Have you ever seen the t-shirt that says “I am out of estrogen and I’m carrying a gun”
Thanks so much for your questions and comments, everyone!!
Time for me to head off for Sunday supper. Hope to see you all in future discussions…
Jeffrey Feldman @ 95
The beginning of the end of the mediocrity of licensed spectrum mainstream broadcast media or the end of licensed spectrum mainstream broadcast media altogether will start with a superior competing technology. In much the same way that Paley and Stanton and Cronkite dumbed up America with so called broadcast news (a nightly newscast consisting of a minimum of 16 minutes of advertising) and the other 23 and one half hours of junk, the Internet offers unlicensed digital packet broadcasting for almost realtime international multilingual broadcasts./ Technology and patents already exist for limited word domain multilingual broadcasts. And the person who develops the fist international news site with news contributors worldwide will be the gate crasher.
It is most deifnitely not going to impact for FDL and its progeny to only eixt as a critical forum. FDL must become a disseminator of well researched facts and presentations drawing on an international multilingual audience and it must work outside the normal reference to responding to events or stationary news events such as the Libby trial.
Remember this one
“It’ll be a great day when education gets all the money it wants and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy bombers. ~Author unknown,
Well we are there, military families around the nation have been holding “bake sales for body armor”.
Not such a great day after all.
Jeffrey Feldman @ 105
Thanks so much for your considered replies and discussion, and to Mr. Newberry as well.
kathleen @ 107
Neither is education getting all the money it wants.
dreamcatcher @ 92
That’s a good point. So how, given how unhappy people are with the US health care system, can it be reframed. I do think that the “socialized” attribution loses power with every passing year. One of the things that I’ve been frustrated by lately is that doctors are being increasingly not allowed to precribe treatments–insurance companies impose limits on drug availability, rehabilitation sessions and other elements.
How can we turn “socialism” into “universal”?
Feldman “And the person who develops the first international news site with news contributors worldwide will be the gate crasher.”
I believe Al jazeera was on this path. The broadcasters the MSM blocked them from crashing the gate. Al Jazeera has been blocked from broadcasting in the U.S.
EvilDrPuma @ 109
I know I live in Ohio
Jeffrey Feldman @ 98
I’m one of the tech leads on the YearlyKos in Second Life project, and am very enthusiastic about the virtual space we’re putting together, especially given how well the MoveOn Townhall did at presenting candidates with much tougher questions than the Jim Lehrers of this world present. You, Matt Bai and mcJoan are a great combination.
this has been a great salon – thanks to mr feldman and mr newberry for this ;0} – love the LAKE!!!!
kathleen @ 111
Who cares about attribution.
The point is that Al jazeera is not blocked from developing the ability to simultaneously broadcasting its “news” in multiple languages nor is FDL. That technology exists within limited word domains and mainstream media does not have the cpacity to do that on vhf or uhf spectrum. But the capacity exists on the Internet and we have to go way beyond “entertainment” technology such as You Tube, etc to provide forums for information to be provided, for example, for every event in Iraq reported from the ground in Iraq in multiple languages simultaneously or for example a flashing multilingual neon sign counting every minute Bush spends in the gym and reporting his activities 24/7. Thw world needs to know what Bush really does on a daily basis.
The Michigan GOP is playing a nasty game of chicken over school funding with the Governer here, kathleen.
I don’t even Gov Granholm her job, but man she’s got to play this hard. From what i can see? She is. The GOP is attempting to frame the debate too. Allover it’s just a really harsh battle, with the potential of shutting down the michigan government temporarily.
Thank you, Jeffrey, and thank you Stirling. Really apreciate you both being here today.
kathleen @
94
Jeffrey would you call blogs a new type of “deliberative body”?
Jeffrey
I would call blogs deliberative bodies, even though they are not constitutionally defined. Participation in blogs is the most striking innovation in American deliberative democracy in my lifetime.
Jeffrey “Participation in blogs is the most striking innovation in American deliberative democracy in my lifetime”
Three cheers for firedoglake and all other open and socratic blogathons.
When I attended a conference here at Ohio University Scripps School of Journalism a few years ago about the MSM and blogs, and I heard some of the hot shot journalist expressing fear about blogs I knew it was a good sign.
Dubious gooper frames, weakened by exposure, give way to Firedoglakes daily. Thanks FDL.
jang @
97
I agree. I have been paying more attention to Pelosi than to Webb, but she is fantastic.
aliasofwestgate @ 116
I am aware it was bait. But I really do not know the Michigan situation. Though well aware of our school constitutional crisis here in Ohio that Gov. Strickland will resolve if he is able.
we got to hear jeff thurs nite in DC (and i discussed FDL with him); glad he took the time to chime in today. i’m just checking in now and will catch up on the proceedings.
thanks again to FDL and feldman.
I know this has been previously addressed. I would add that manipulation tactics are effective in the short run because they work on people on an emotional level. Even very smart people can be manipulated. It works because they are unaware that they are being manipulated. Once they know, it’s a different outcome entirely. I don’t think there is anything wrong with Americans wanting to give their new president or new News Channel (Fox) the benefit of the doubt at the beginning. But once they know their trust has been abused, out these sociopaths must go!
I think if a premise is to be rejected, then the reason it’s being rejected should also be given. IMO, to reject a premise simply to divert attention into a new frame would be to engage in manipulation. Diversion is a manipulation tactic.
I’m a strong believer in Jujitsu, where you take the false words of the premise and turn it around against the spinner. Max Blumenthal did this brilliantly, in a visual way, when he approached Michelle Malkin to have her autograph a picture of a concentration camp where Japanese Americans were held.
Previously, Malkin defended the use of these camps. All she could do was backtrack on her position and physically run away from Max. It was a thing of beauty really. We want the manipulative Neocons like Bill Kristol and members of the anti-Democratic party to run from us, to know their BS no longer works.
Generally, I’ve been learning how to recognize when a manipulation tactic is used. That’s the first step in stopping this unethical, emotionally-abusive, covert-aggressive behavior. And the tactics may be used in different combinations, even together in a single statement–so it takes some work to recognize them. We need to be assertive (calling our their behavior) and not aggressive like them.
—————————
Here is a crash course in manipulation tactics to watch out for: *
Denial
This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they’ve done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It’s a way they lie (to themselves as well as others) about their aggressive intentions. This “Who… Me?” tactic is a way of “playing innocent,” and invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior. It’s also the way the aggressor gives him/herself permission to keep right on doing what they want to do. A covert-aggressive personality uses denial to protect his/her self-image.
Lying
It’s often hard to tell when a person is lying at the time he’s doing it. Fortunately, there are times when the truth will come out because circumstances don’t bear out somebody’s story. But there are also times when you don’t know you’ve been deceived until it’s too late. One way to minimize the chances that someone will put one over on you is to remember that because aggressive personalities of all types will generally stop at nothing to get what they want, you can expect them to lie and cheat. Another thing to remember is that manipulators – covert-aggressive personalities that they are – are prone to lie in subtle, covert ways. Courts are well aware of the many ways that people lie, as they require that court oaths charge that testifiers tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Manipulators often lie by withholding a significant amount of the truth from you or by distorting the truth. They are adept at being vague when you ask them direct questions. This is an especially slick way of lying’ omission. Keep this in mind when dealing with a suspected wolf in sheep’s clothing. Always seek and obtain specific, confirmable information.
Selective Inattention
This tactic is similar to and sometimes mistaken for denial. It’s when the aggressor “plays dumb,” or acts oblivious. When engaging in this tactic, the aggressor actively ignores the warnings, pleas or wishes of others, and in general, refuses to pay attention to everything and anything that might distract them from pursuing their own agenda. Often, the aggressor knows full well what you want from him when he starts to exhibit this “I don’t want to hear it!” behavior.
Rationalization
A rationalization is the excuse an aggressor tries to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behavior. It can be an effective tactic, especially when the explanation or justification the aggressor offers makes just enough sense that any reasonably conscientious person is likely to fall for it. It’s a powerful tactic because it not only serves to remove any internal resistance the aggressor might have about doing what they want to do (quieting any qualms of conscience they might have) but also to keep others off their back.
Diversion
A moving target is hard to hit. When we try to pin a manipulator down or try to keep a discussion focused on a single issue or behavior we don’t like, they’re expert at knowing how to change the subject, dodge the issue or in some way throw us a curve. They use distraction and diversion techniques to keep the focus off their behavior, move us off-track, and keep themselves free to promote their self-serving hidden agendas.
Covert Intimidation
Aggressors frequently threaten their victims to keep them anxious, apprehensive and in a one-down position. Covert-aggressives intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats.
Guilt-tripping
This is one of the covert-aggressive’s two favorite weapons (the other is shaming). It’s a special kind of intimidation tactic. One thing that aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do. Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon. Aggressive personalities of all types use guilt-tripping so frequently and effectively as a manipulative tactic. All a manipulator has to do is suggest to the conscientious person that they don’t care enough, are too selfish, etc., and that person immediately starts to feel bad. On the contrary, a conscientious person might try until they’re blue in the face to get a manipulator (or any other aggressive personality) to feel badly about a hurtful behavior, acknowledge responsibility, or admit wrongdoing, to absolutely no avail.
Shaming
Using rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm and other techniques, covert-aggressives can invite you to feel ashamed of yourself. This technique is used as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, submit to them. It’s an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance.
Playing the Victim Role
This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstance or someone else’s behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. One thing that covert-aggressive personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and hostile personalities usually can’t stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your victim you’re suffering in some way, and they’ll try to relieve your distress.
Vilifying the Victim
This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim. It enables the aggressor to better put the victim on the defensive.
Playing the Servant Role
Covert-aggressives use this tactic to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It’s a common tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else’s behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of dominance over others.
Seduction
Covert-aggressive personalities are adept at charming, praising, flattering or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and surrender their trust and loyalty.
Projecting the Blame (blaming others)
Aggressive personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not only skilled at finding scapegoats, they’re expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways.
Minimization
This tactic is a unique kind of denial coupled with rationalization. When using this maneuver, the aggressor attempting to assert their abusive behavior isn’t really as harmful or irresponsible as someone else may be claiming. It’s the aggressor’s attempt to make a molehill out of a mountain.
* Excerpt from In Sheep’s Clothing: Understanding and Dealing With Manipulative People — by George K. Simon
I’ve also seen logic fallacies used for their arguments in addition to manipulation tactics, so brushing up on logic is very helpful too.
- Tom
EvilDrPuma @ 96
Don’t forget that the RightWingers are corporatists and that advertising is their propagandistic specialty. They are expert at it.
I think humour (think Daily Show) is a spin-buster re-framing bit of genius.