Communication Science Class 3 PDF

C O M M U N I C AT I O N SCIENCE Dr. Elke Mahieu L ASSWELL ’ S F O R M U L A (1948) What? To Whom? What content? What is the Who is the public? To whom meaning of the message? is the message addressed? What are the characteri...

C O M M U N I C AT I O N SCIENCE Dr. Elke Mahieu L ASSWELL ’ S F O R M U L A (1948) What? To Whom? What content? What is the Who is the public? To whom meaning of the message? is the message addressed? What are the characteristics Who? of the audience? Which individuals Which organisations? Why? What is the (intended and actual) effect of the message? What does the message (try to) achieve? A n d How? Which channels are being used? What technology is being deployed? How is the message conveyed? Framing analysis ‘Framing’ as a theory of content and meaning F RAMING AS AN EVERYDAY THEORY Related to the media and how they show facts Implies lies, manipulation, twisting of the facts Opposition between the real truth, the hard facts on the one hand and the media’s distorted account of them on the other hand Like many everyday theories, this everyday theory does not line up with the scientific account of framing  F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY A couple of definitions: Frames are mental schemes, cognitive schemata that provide people with “…ways of selecting, organizing, interpreting, and making sense of a complex reality to provide guideposts for knowing, analyzing, persuading and acting” (Rein and Schön, 1993) The essence of framing is sizing-magnifying or shrinking elements of the depicted reality to make them more or less salient. (Entman et al.,2009). “Frame articulation involves the connection and alignment of events and experiences so that they hang together in a relatively unified and compelling fashion. Slices of observed, experienced, and/or recorded ‘reality’ are assembled, collated, and packaged. What gives the resultant collective action frame its novelty is not so much the originality or newness of its ideational elements, but the manner in which they are spliced together and articulated, such that a new angle of vision, vantage point, and/or interpretation is provided.” (Benford & Snow, 2000)  F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY A couple of definitions: “The organization of experience” (Goffman, p. 11): […] definitions of a situation are built up in accordance with principles of organization which govern events-at least social ones-and our subjective involvement in them; frame is the word I use to refer to such of these basic elements as I am able to identify.” Frames consist of: A diagnosis of the problem, a proposition of solutions and tactics, and a motivation for action (Benford & Snow, 1992). (…) Active, processual phenomenon that implies agency and contention at the level of reality construction. It is active in the sense that something is being done, and processual in the sense of a dynamic, evolving process. (Benford & Snow, p. 614)  F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY A couple of definitions: Framing devices appear as “natural”, unremarkable choices of words or images. (…) such choices are not inevotable or unproblematic but rather central to the way the news frame helps establish the literally “common sense” interpretation of events (Entman, 1991). Gamson and Modigliani’s frequently quoted definition of framing is the “central organizing idea or storyline that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events” (1987, p. 143). The second genre of definition specifies what frames generally do, especially issue frames. This includes defining problems, making moral judgments, and supporting remedies (Entman, et al., 2009).  F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY A couple of definitions: “The social world is….a kaleidoscope of potential realities, any of which can be readily evoked by altering the way in which observations are framed and categorized.” (Edelmann, 1993, p. 232)  F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY A couple of definitions: “I assume that when individuals attend to any current situation, they face the question: ‘what is it that’s going on here?’ […] the answer to it is presumed by the way individuals then proceed to get on with the affairs at hand. […] Given their understanding of what it is that is going on, individuals fit their actions to this understanding and ordinarily find that the ongoing world supports this fitting. These organizational premises – sustained both in the mind and in activity – I call the frame of the activity” (Goffman, 1974) We are all “cognitive misers” (Fiske & Taylor), we try and do as little thinking as possible. Framing provides a quick and easy way to process information, allows us to make sense of the world around us without any effort. Hence, since people are cognitive misers, they will use frames whenever possible. This makes frames incredibly powerful.  F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY A couple of definitions: Often studied in relation to media, political leaders, social movements. As Lippmann (1922, p. 18) observed, “The world that [people] have to deal with is out of reach, out of sight, out of mind.” Goffman (1974, p. 104) states that: “Of public affairs, each of us sees very little, and therefore, they remain dull and unappetizing, until somebody, with the makings of an artist, has translated them into a moving picture.” Media as “the chief means of symbolic contact with the political environment,” potentially yielding “significant influence over citizens’ perceptions, opinions, and behavior” (Entman et al., 2009, p. 179). The way in which the news media organize reality for presentation to the public. News frames are employed by journalists, via tools of language – such as metaphors, exemplars (or historical lessons), catch-phrases, depictions and visual images – to impose order on the social world so as to render its happenings into a series of meaningful events.  F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY Takeaways: Reality is waaay too complex to allow itself to be captured exhaustively o “making sense of a complex reality”, “what is it that’s going on here?” o Transformation of reality into ‘information’ (object of knowledge that can circulate in the social relations established by communication) Reality Framing Information  F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY Takeaways: Reality is waaay too complex to allow itself to be captured exhaustively o Transformation of reality into ‘information’ (object of knowledge that can circulate in the social relations established by communication) “Selection”, taking a cut or a splice from reality o This implies that some elements are not selected, they get cut away, and do not feature in or become part of the frame o A frame only takes up a few anecdotes, stereotypes, highlights, logics, and reasonings, and drops the rest  F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY Takeaways: Reality is waaay too complex to allow itself to be captured exhaustively o Transformation of reality into ‘information’ (object of knowledge that can circulate in the social relations established by communication) "Selection", taking a cut or a splice from reality o This implies that some elements are not selected, they get cut away, and do not feature in or become part of the frame o A frame only takes up a few anecdotes, stereotypes, highlights, logics, and reasonings, and drops the rest Because reality is so complex, many different things can be selected/cut away, meaning that many different framings are possible, which give many different meanings to the world  F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY Takeaways: Whichever elements are selected, need to be organized by connecting and assembling them, highlighting some elements and downplaying others, so as to articulate and combine them into a coherent, meaningful picture Even if they are comprised of the same elements, different modes of organizing can give two frames a different meaning Without the coherent and meaningful picture generated by a frame, reality is faaar too complex for humans to act (Goffman’s ‘frame of the activity’) Only through frames can we understand the frames are inevitable, for world without frames, the world is Only through frames can we plot a course meaningless of action  F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY Takeaways: Whichever elements are selected, need to be organized by connecting and assembling them, highlighting some elements and downplaying others, so as to articulate and combine them into a coherent, meaningful picture Without the coherent and meaningful picture generated by a frame, reality is faaar too complex to understand (Goffman’s ‘frame of the activity’) o Only through frames can we understand the frames are inevitable, for world without frames, the world is o Only through frames can we plot a course of meaningless action It is impossible to look at the world in a neutral way, our understanding of reality is always coloured, always ideological. Every worldview has a vantage point and a perspective from which it looks at the world, there is no ‘view from nowhere’ F RAMING AS AN EVERYDAY THEORY VS FRAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY Related to the media and how they show facts Implies lies, manipulation, twisting of the facts Opposition between the real truth, the hard facts on the one hand and the media’s distorted account of them on the other hand Everybody frames Selection and assembly are inevitable if we want to understand and act in the world Worldviews are never neutral F RAMING AS A SOCIAL - SCIENTIFIC THEORY However, framing distortion and lying does not mean that frames cannot be used to distort and to lie Communication scientists do not only focus on selection and assemblage within the frame, they also look at what gets ignored, what lies beyond the frame F RAMING : AN INFINITE NUMBER OF REALITIES Apart from reality itself, nothing limits how a situation can be framed This implies that many different meanings can be ascribed to the same reality The meaning of a reality therefore depends on how it is framed F RAMING : AN INFINITE NUMBER OF REALITIES Ritual slaughter of animals without stunning: a common topic for debate F RAMING : AN INFINITE NUMBER OF REALITIES Ritual slaughter of animals without stunning: a question of animal well-being F RAMING : AN INFINITE NUMBER OF REALITIES Ritual slaughter of animals without stunning: a political game F RAMING : AN INFINITE NUMBER OF REALITIES Ritual slaughter of animals without stunning: a judicial affair F RAMING : AN INFINITE NUMBER OF REALITIES Ritual slaughter of animals without stunning: a figleaf for racism F RAMING : AN INFINITE NUMBER OF REALITIES Ritual slaughter of animals without stunning: a religious and cultural question F RAMING : AN INFINITE NUMBER OF REALITIES Ritual slaughter of animals without stunning: an economic question F RAMING : AN INFINITE NUMBER OF REALITIES Ritual slaughter of animals without stunning: a source of sexual arousal, or a subject for literary penmanship? F RAMING : AN INFINITE NUMBER OF REALITIES Ritual slaughter of animals without stunning: a culinary issue A GENCY & STRUCTURE Agency > structure in framing theory and framing analysis o Framing theory and analysis explain reality by pointing at the behavior of actors (which elements of reality did they select, how did they combine them, which elements did they ignore,…) Framing is something that people do, actively ○ Framing analysis emphasizes the entrepreneurship of actors who behave consciously ○ Actors make strategic choices about how they will frame a situation – these can pan out succesfully or unsuccesfully F RAMING AS A POLITICAL OR MEDIA STRATEGY F RAMING AS A POLITICAL OR MEDIA STRATEGY F RAMING AS A POLITICAL OR MEDIA STRATEGY R EALITY LIMITS FRAMING Apart from reality, nothing limits how a situation can be framed (cfr. Ritual slaughter without sedation example) However, since frames always capture a reality that exists an extra-discursively, outside the frame, reality itself can delimit framing Reality precedes and exists independently from the frames that give her meaning (= ontological dualism) This implies that actors who give meaning to reality by framing it, do not have complete and total agency, their freedom of action is limited by the material constraints of reality o This implies that actors who give meaning to reality by framing it, do not have complete and total agency, their freedom of action is limited by the material constraints of reality o Framing theory takes a middle ground between materialism and idealism (cfr. debates in social science last week)  M E A N I N G DEPENDS O N C O N T E X T The meanings generated by a frame are tied to the frame’s context Frames that select the same elements and assemble them exactly the same way can convey very different meanings depending on o when & where the frame was produced o when & where the frame is shown o where the observers of the frame find themselves o … Context can be social, cultural, economic, ideological, physical, temporal…  M E A N I N G DEPENDS O N C O N T E X T The diachronic nature of frames A framing message has a particular ‘cultural resonances’ or ‘narrative fidelity’ Frames are not understood as individual schemas, but as collectively shared patterns of a social group. (Entman et al., 2009, p. 179) Framing processes occur at four levels: in the minds of elites and professional political communicators; in the texts of communications; and in the minds of individual citizens (Entman et al., 2009, p. 176). Culture: the stock of schemas commonly found in the minds of a society’s individuals, and the stock of frames present in the system’s communications, including literature, entertainment, news, conversations and other political discourse. (Entman et al., 2009, p. 176) By definition, these common schemas are the ones that form the basis for most individuals’ reactions to framing communications. Elites do not have unlimited autonomy but are constrained to choosing from this cultural stock, which records the traces of past framing (Entman et al., 2009, p. 176). FRAMES M AT T E R Frames have real, genuine power o If something is often framed the same way, people will accept this one frame as true, and they will deem other framings to be a lie (cultivation theory) o If something is framed as important, it will rise on the public agenda and be the object of (political) intervention (agenda-setting theory) o If something is framed as normal, people who agree will feel reinforced in their beliefs, while people who disagree will shut up (spiral of silence theory) FRAMES M AT T E R Frames have real, genuine power Power is not just material (armies, money,…), power also resides in meanings, messages, and inforlation Communication is often one of the most effective ways to exercise power o E.g. Brexit referendum: nearly all institutional, legal, and economic power was used on behalf of Remain, but concerted communicative efforts (media, political slogans,…) enabled a Leave victory FRAMES M AT T E R  R EADINGS Entman, R. (1991). Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents. Journal of Communication. 41(4): pp. 6-27. Entman, R., Matthes, J. and Pellicano, L. (2009). Nature, Sources, and Effects of News Framing. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen, and T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The Handbook of Journalism Studies (pp. 175-191). New York: Routledge. Benford, R., and D. Snow. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology. 26(1): 611-639. Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of communication. 49(1): 103-122. Van Hulst, M., and D. Yanow. (2016).From policy “frames” to “framing” theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. The American Review of Public Administration. 46(1): 92-112. Cacciatore, M., D. Scheufele, and S. Iyengar. (2016). The end of framing as we know it… and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society. 19(1): 7-23.