We need to seriously discuss the FRAMING issue concerning candidates and the media

[Lerkfish]

Please no flames.
Let's open up the discussion about the FRAMING of democratic candidates...not as individual examples but as an analysis on a strategic level.

As we saw with the "Deanscream" and the swiftboat attack, the media has a way of setting democratic candidates up and blowing them down. We are always REACTING to the framing.

How can we get out ahead of this and frame things ourselves, early on, in a way that helps instead of hurts us?

Please, everyone who contributes discuss framing ONLY. I'm hoping to avoid cheerleading or demonizing of various candidates.

lets just discuss how to circumvent their stranglehold on the framing issue.

thanks.

[dmkinsey]

1. I think it's futile to suggest

that we can frame anything.
None of us has the slightest control over how the MSM report a story.
I consider that whole Lakoff thing a waste of time.

[Lerkfish]

2. er...ok, thanks for chiming in, then.

its nice to shoot threads down in the first post, before a discussion can get started.

:shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

5. Mission accomplished.

;)

[Tellurian]

3. Plus reformatting posting here is making it very difficult to converse with the same poster..

or wait for a reply..

anyone know what the idea is re the reformatting of posting style is all about?

[ClassWarrior]

8. Thank you for your concern.

So how many of Lakoff's books have you read?

:eyes:

NGU.

[PVnRT]

23. Good for you

Go back to your hole and throw your hands up in the air and whine when your guy isn't elected. The rest of us will actually work, K?

[omega minimo]

4. Define "framing"

"How can we get out ahead of this and frame things ourselves, early on, in a way that helps instead of hurts us?"

How do you answer that question? Your OP suggests you've thought about it.............

[Lerkfish]

13. well, I do have some thoughts, but wanted to generate some discussion first but

here's what I think:

"framing" is how both the media and the opposition label things, often dishonestly, to push the populace in a certain direction. It is much like propaganda, except its more like abbreviated spin doctoring. Obviously, the media is controlled by conservatives at this point, but here is what I think we MUST address on some level to dissolve framing:

1. ACKNOWLEDGE AND CALL ATTENTION TO THE FRAMING
What I said during the Kerry campaign is that we needed to point a flashlight at Rove and explain exactly what he was doing. As long as we concentrated on attack A, and getting bogged down with it, he was launching attack or distraction B, C, D, Z.
Instead of putting out the myriad fires, we need to expose the pyromaniac, loudly, clearly, and publicly. i.e. "Well, this is classic Rove strategy: take my exemplary military record and make it appear to be stain on my record. Here's how he did that with McCain, with X, with Y, on down the line."

2. CONFRONT THE MEDIA
One thing the republicans excel at is painting the media into corners. Loudly and vehemently they claim "liberal media bias" which is not only untrue, but which forces media to make sure they never come down on the liberal side of issues, because they don't wish to be called "biased'. They fear it, because it goes to their credibility. Republicans have correctly figured out this is how you manipulate the media. Not just by getting to the owners, but by making it painful or annoying to present all sides of the issue. Do we become the whiney butts that the republicans are? No, but we CAN continually and accurately point out conservative bias whenever possible. For example, a talking heads panel that is 4 repubs and 1 vichy dem. If we call attention, without whining, to that slant, and keep it up, then the media will start to be afraid of us.

3. REFRAME WHEN POSSIBLE
Self-explanatory, but when they say "all options are on the table re: Iran", we can say "good, because that means diplomacy is on the table, and we're going to use that FIRST, and until it fails, we're not moving on to any other options" That way, if the Bush administration refuses to use diplomacy, we're on record pushing for it.

4. LABEL OUR OWN POINTS CLEARLY AND SUCCINCTLY
We are our own worst enemy in this regard: Our message is muddled and indistinct. Part of that is because we're a big tent, part of it is lack of adequate access to media, but the part that we have control over is what we say.
For an example of someone who did it RIGHT, look at Webb's response to the SOTU. It's clear, its understandable, Its short and to the point. And, it acknowledges issues that 80% of the people are concerned about, AND more importantly there's no way it could be construed as a stump speech of a candidate. People know when they're hearing posturing or stump speeches, and they turn their ears off.
Republicans have a propaganda phone tree. Obviously they are getting the exact same talking points, AND THEY REPEAT THEM AD NAUSEUM. And, it works. I'm not suggesting we do that per se, but I think better control of the message is vital.

but anyhow, I'm more interested in what others think about this, since I"m still forming my own thoughts on it.

[arendt]

6. Framing requires control...

first control of some segment of the media - which the GOP have in spades.

Then, you need party discipline to send one message at a time. The GOP
march in lockstep, like all reactionaries.

I see the framing problem as fundamental. From what I read here, half the
people here don't even get it. And they are supposed to be sophisticated
politicos.

I'm burned out from the last thread. Got real world stuff needs to be done.
But, I heartily endorse this discussion.

arendt

[omega minimo]

7. What you're describing is propaganda

What other thread?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

20. you're carrying over harrassment from one thread to another

please don't bring that into my thread, thanks. I asked for a civil discourse

[bettyellen]

28. i was not the one who "brought up" the thread, okay.

so get over yourself. It was just icing on the cake that the other thread contained anti- dem propaganda.
a great lesson in how to NOT follow RW talking points if you're actually a Dem, because you'll get slammed for it here. And rightfully so. .

[Lerkfish]

29. the problem is, you're not contributing anything of value to the thread except acrimony

I don't care if you don't like the other thread, I don't care if you don't like the other OP, I"m saying please don't bring the old barfight HERE unless you are also willing to contribute something of value.

[bettyellen]

30. I'm actually a big fan of Lakoff myself... and i am curious a sto what use this knowledge is

if we are not writing the stories ourselves. sure, i am able to "activate" new frames in one on one conversations, LTTE and other smallish gestures.... but that's about it. I'm not sure how useful it is other than that, so i read this thread.
and i'm sorry you don;t like it, but when someone dismisses major dems like barack or hill by repeating RW lies,, sure there's going to be a bar fight. that thread should have been locked immediately for lies against dems in the OP. what a dumb OP to try something like that. thanks god the mods realized it eventually.

[AX10]

9. Where are the rich liberals to build our noise machine?

[Greyhound]

21. Where they've always been, in the world of the rich, a place that few

here have any knowledge of. Rich and liberal are mutually exclusive terms, at least insofar as most people understand the term liberal.

Class is really source of most of the conflict that we debate in places like this (DU). Black or white, woman or man, gay or straight, Democrat or Republican, Jew, Muslim or Christian, all these divisions are just distractions and cannot be resolved without first addressing the basic premise, and point of the OP, that class distinctions are responsible for framing the questions as well as the answers.

The fundamental truth, that we consistently ignore, is that it is impossible for some to have more without many others having less. Once accepted, this allows one to see that it is a truth whether discussing individuals, families, companies, or nations.

[Ethelk2044]

27. KICK

[Top08Gear_com]

10. Allowing Framing

Should we even be trying to FRAME any of the Candidates? The MSM does it because they can. They think they give us the stories we WANT instead of simply REPORTING on what's going on in even a slightly unbiased way.

We shouldn't have to create or react to Framing, because it simply shouldn't happen.

People shouldn't count on the media to tell them who a candidate is, they should learn on their own, which I suppose they COULD do through the media if the media could simply REPORT the news. Until then, it's up to each of us to research for ourselves and find the best candidate based on their actions, words, and ideas.

The mainstream media frames candidates b/c we let them. We don't call them on it, b/c most of the population doesn't realize that what they are saying isn't accurate. Or they DO realize it, and simply don't care enough to demand they change.

[Lerkfish]

14. Your last paragraph gets to my point.

we need to be aware of the framing and dissolve it. I'm not necessarily suggesting we do our own framing, per se.

but we can't fight what we don't acknowledge

[newyawker99]

17. Hi Top08Gear_com!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AdHocSolver]

11. Framing the problem as being "framing" IS the problem.

I read Lakoff's books and I came to the conclusion that he blurs the problem more than he helps.

The Republicans, in controlling the Executive branch, controlling Congress up until the 2006 election, and in dominating the media, have an overwhelming advantage in framing the issues. Under those circumstances, neither Democrats nor liberals nor moderates could get enough public attention to their causes to dominate any issues.
The only way to deal with this situation is to develop concise, attention-getting, effective responses to deal with these attacks. This has been the Democratic party's singular weakness the past several years. They have been fighting the political battles all wrong.

The Democratic response to the "Deanscream" is one good example. The networks replaying the video over and over again put the party into panic mode. It wasn't really that critical to the race, but the party immediately decided to squash the primary campaign and "select" an "electable" candidate, John Kerry, to avoid any future occurrences like the "Deanscream". The result was that the party effectively stopped all the free media attention to the primary race and therefore all the free media attention to the issues that the Democrats wanted to put before the public. Once the Democratic primary battle was over, the media stopped covering the race and the Democrats had to pay for media time. The party response was totally self-defeating and hurt the nominee's (Kerry's) chances much worse than the "Deanscream". It wasn't the framing that caused the damage, it was the response.

The same rationale applies to the swiftboat attack. There was no way to stop it or even counter it beforehand. What was needed was an intelligent reponse to neutralize its effect. Kerry evidently thought that by ignoring it he could "put himself above the fray." Considering that he already had been smeared with an image as being elitist and aloof, not responding to this affront only strengthened the image that the Republicans had attached to him. His nonresponse also made questionable his record as a fighter which gave some credibility to their attacks about his bravery.

One more issue involving framing is that in trying to nuance their positions, some Democrats come out looking like "flip-floppers". They search for the "right words" to express their positions and merely appear to be trying to cater to all sides. The result is that they are seen as untrustworthy. I recall more than one comment about Republican candidates of the type, "I don't like his position, but at least I know where he stands."

After reading Lakoff's books, I developed an uneasy feeling that it placed too much belief in the idea that "if we only word our policy statements correctly, everything would come our way." In the 2006 elections, we did well mainly because of Howard Dean's fifty state strategy. (You can't win if you don't even try.) With a Democratic majority in the House, the public will be focused on what they do with it, and the media will have to cover it. Now is the time to put forth a Democratic agenda that will win public support.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Then you apparently weren't reading very carefully.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/escalating-truth

NGU.

[Lerkfish]

15. thanks for your thoughtful post, although I haven't read Lakoff's books,

it sounds like he has come to the same conclusion about framing as I have.
Although I'm not saying we JUST need to word things carefully.

I'm more talking about dissolving the power of framing that is already happening, and making us continually put out bogus fires.
I'm wanting to discuss strategies to avoid being on the defensive constantly, or being manipulated into certain unsatisfactory positions.

[omega minimo]

19. Yes. Here's the solution

1. Get rid of the goddamned bogus "consultants"

2. Be direct. Not contrived

3. Groom a literate and/or savvy public (Jeffersons' "informed electorate") that will suss out the bullshit for themselves and reject it (rather than borrow or buy their perceptions and opinions from the consultant/punditocracy)

4. Quit thinking that The Other Guy is always the sucker who has to be pandered to with condescending marketing-speak (the Achilles Heel of Lakoffism)

5. Media reform





Excellent post! :applause:

[Lerkfish]

16. thanks everyone for your thoughtful posts. it helped me solidify some thoughts of my own.

thanks.

[lwcon]

22. I couldn't agree with you more

I've been beating the drum on this as loudly as I can, over at my obscure corner of the 'net.

Several posts on this topic: http://vastleft.blogspot.com/search/label/framing


___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[PVnRT]

24. A lot of people here don't want to hear this

but we have to start couching our policies in terms of things like freedom and America and the American Dream, and all those other buzzwords that the GOP has tapped into. We need to subvert those words so that they become associated instead with things like smart foreign policy, universal health care, gay rights and so on.

Unfortunately, there is a knee-jerk aversion by many to using the frames that the right has used, for fear of becoming "them." Using their weapons doesn't make you "them," it makes you resourceful. We are fools if we don't start pursuing this.

[lwcon]

26. Right on (n/t)

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Ethelk2044]

25. Framing Dems

We as Dems need to fight back.

1. Immediately when someone hears something about a Democratic Candidate we should Post the issue on DU in order to get DUers to respond to the accusation immediately.


2. Some Duers would need to be ready for researching the issue. Also, if there are known issues with the Candidate and we are already aware of then. Research the issues before hand. We can have the information already handy.

3. Gather email addresses to all media outlets before the attacks begin.

4. Post the information on DU along with the email addresses. Ask DUers to send emails.


4. DUers would proceed with emailing all of the media with the truth and push for them to investigate the issue immediately.

5. Republicans blogged like crazy with the last election. We need to make sure there is a group of bloggers ready to counter attack any misrepresentation on any democratic candidate. We need to beat them in blogging. Put a blogging team together along with websites to blog on to counter the attack.



6. You Tube is a good place to put video which can counter any accusation. We can use what is out there already to get the truth out.

7. Fight back and Fight hard. We can not be seen as soft and unwilling to fight.

:toast: