Mediacology

What follows is a decent article about how conservatives “frame” language in order to control how issues are thought about. The concept is based on the work of neurolinguist George Lakoff, whose book Don’t Think of an Elephant, was in the back pocket of every Democrat after the last presidential defeat. Framing is important for the study of propaganda, but I think it’s overblown because it assumes that all politics is about language (much of it is) and who controls it, but coming up with good ways to frame concepts is no substitute for good policy and righteous action. Sure framing will help progressives and ecologists get their messages out, but what is more important is ethics, intention and pedagogy. Organizers should think less about manipulations and more about establishing good intentions through the pedagogy and work of their cause. By incorporating the philosophy of Deep Ecology, for example, the long term change has greater benefits.
To Catch a Wolf: How to Stop Conservative Frames in Their Tracks - CommonDreams.org:

BLITZER: Congressman Kucinich, you voted against the Patriot Act when it was first introduced. You’ve since voted again against it. But some would say yesterday’s plot that was described by the FBI underscores the need for precisely that kind of tough measure to deal with potential terrorists out there.

Here is the framing evoked by the question:

First, and perhaps most importantly, the question assumed that the plot was indeed serious and was not, as Arianna Huffington has suggested, disorganized and disgruntled citizens who were hapless and harmless. Second, the question assumed that the plot was only foiled due to the provisions of the Patriot Act - not community cooperation or police work. Third, the question lumped all Patriot Act provisions together under the banner of necessity. Many provisions in the Patriot Act are indeed beneficial and needed. However, many more are a clear violation of civil rights - Blitzer’s question did not reveal these disparities. Fourth, the language “tough measure” and “terrorists out there” represented the Bush administration exactly as the President wanted: The Republicans are tough (hence the Democrats are weak), and there is real evil immediately threatening us (and the Democrats are too weak to protect us).

Finally, the question suggested that the trampling of civil rights through this “tough measure to deal with potential terrorists” is virtuous and worthy of being commended. Since the plot was foiled — Blitzer’s question implied that the Patriot Act is an effective measure to fight terrorists — and is therefore worth the destruction of civil rights.

Technorati Tags: Lakeoff, puppy