NAME:

AKINTAYO KEHINDE MONSURAT

MATRIC:

134072081

COURSE:

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND WORLD PRESS

Introduction
The concept of framing is commonly used in communication literature, but rarely structurally
defined. It can be understood as an approach to the effects of media that in general denotes the
idea that the media deal with certain issues in different ways and that, therefore, the issue is
covered and reported to the public in different frames or perspectives (Kohring & Matthes,
2002). Entmans definition (1993) has remained central to subsequent research in the field.
Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of a
perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to
promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment
recommendation for the item described. Studies in behavioural sciences indicate that the way a
problem decision is framed provides a contextual cue which may significantly influence
decision making or changes of opinion (Iyengar, 1991). Framing is important because in the
absence of personal experience, media portrayals guide audience interpretation and influence the
formation of new opinions (Clegg Smith, et al., 2008). The power is demonstrated through
strategic ideological framing of not only the facts of the story itself but of the actors, leaders,
affected communities, relevant arguments and proposed solutions (Pan & Kosicki, 2001).

History and Orientation

The concept of framing is related to the agenda-setting tradition but expands the research by
focusing on the essence of the issues at hand rather than on a particular topic. The basis of
framing theory is that the media focuses attention on certain events and then places them within a
field of meaning. Framing is an important topic since it can have a big influence and therefore
the concept of framing expanded to organizations as well.

The media draws the public attention to certain topics, it decides where people think about, the
journalists select the topics. This is the original agenda setting thought. In news items occurs
more than only bringing up certain topics. The way in which the news is brought, the frame in
which the news is presented, is also a choice made by journalists. Thus, a frame refers to the way
media and media gatekeepers organize and present the events and issues they cover, and the way
audiences interpret what they are provided. Frames are abstract notions that serve to organize or
structure social meanings. Frames influence the perception of the news of the audience, this form
of agenda-setting not only tells what to think about, but also how to think about it.

Effect Of Framing On People

Framing affect the attitudes and behaviors of their audiences. Media frames sometimes mimic
those used by politicians, social activists, other media outlets, or citizens (e.g., Scheufele 1999, p.
109; Entman 2004; Carragee & Roefs 2004; Fridkin & Kenney 2005). and, not surprisingly,
citizens regularly adopt frames they learn in discussions with other citizens (e.g., Gamson 1992,
Druckman & Nelson 2003, Walsh 2003).
There is disagreement about the best measure to use to gauge the magnitude of framing effects.
One standard is the variance in preferences produced by alternative frames on an issue. For
example, in assessing tolerance of a hate group rally, a comparison would be drawn between
respondents who received a free speech frame and those who received a public safety frame. A
second standard is the variation in the correlation between alternative framed preferences and
personal values relevant to the issue, such as freedom versus law and order on the hate group
issue (Sniderman & Theriault 2004). This standard assumes that a particular value dimension
represents ones true preference on the issue, so that low correlations indicate large framing
effects. A third standard involves comparing treatment groups to a control group that receives
basic descriptive information about the issue without being exposed to any frames (Druckman
2001a). Each standard can contribute useful information about the effect of a frame, and the
best standard for any particular study may depend on that studys assumptions and purpose.
Using one or more of these standards, scholars have demonstrated framing effects with
experiments, surveys, and case studies across a range of issues including government spending

(Jacoby 2000), campaign nance (Grant & Rudolph 2003), support for the Supreme Court
(Nicholson & Howard 2003), evaluations of foreign nations (Brewer et al. 2003), and many
others. Some studies focus on how different communication frames bias the weight individuals
give to various considerations (Druckman 2001c). Other studies examine how different frames
alter overall opinions without explicitly tracing changes in underlying considerations. For
example, Kinder & Sanders (1990) show that an undeserved advantage frame increases the
salience of racial resentments in white respondents evaluations of afrmative action. A reverse
discrimination frame increases their concern for group interests, such as their educational and
economic opportunities
Theriault (2004) show that attitudes toward government spending for the poor depend on
representations of the consequences of such policies, but they do not directly measure changes in
respondents considerations (also see, e.g., HaiderMarkel & Joslyn 2001). Despite differences in
focus, all such studies assume the same model of attitudes outlined above, in which framing
changes attitudes by ostensibly altering the underlying considerations used in ones evaluation
(e.g., Berelson et al. 1954, pp. 25373; Nelson et al. 1997b; Scheufele 1999, p. 117).

Conclusion
Framing tells us how and why to think about an issue. To frame means to communicate in a way
that leads audiences to see something in a certain light or from a particular perspective. Aspects
that are not included in the frame do not come to the audience's attention. Framing determines
where the audience puts its attention. Effective framing taps into preexisting beliefs, attitudes,
and opinions; it highlights certain aspects of an issue over other aspects.

References
De Vreese, C.H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal +
Document Design 13(1), 51-62.
Entman, R.M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S foreign
policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.]
Frame. (1989). In J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner (Eds.), Oxford English Dictionary (p. 142,
2nd

ed., Vol. VI). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Framing. (1989). In J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner (Eds.), Oxford English Dictionary (p. 143,
2nd ed., Vol. VI). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Iyengar, S. (1994). Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press.
Klein, A.G., Byerly, C.M., and McEachern, T. M. (2009). Counterframing Public Dissent: An
analysis of antiwar coverage in the U.S. media. Critical Studies in Media
Communication,

26(4), 331-350.

Metzger, M. J. The study of media effects in the era of internet communication. In R. Nabi &
M.B. Oliver (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 561-576).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.