Framing The Truth Analysis

Now a days people run to media for answers on current events and expect information to be accurate, but yet do the people know that almost all media news reports are bias. Often times people run to news channels that give out information they want to hear based off the media’s beliefs. The media has always been bias, but it wasn’t until certain events occurred that opened society’s eyes. There are six powerhouse news sources that all have their own type of bias which points out their own perspective on current events. When it comes to current events, different media platforms represent the story from different perspectives. Viewers want their views to be validated rather than challenged and don’t give ideas of what people should do. Although

In a general sense society derives much of their beliefs and indifferences from stories that are covered in the media. If the stories are being reported biased, how can we, as a society, see the whole picture? The author's purpose is to inform readers about the different biases that news and media sway by and to provide evidence that proves instances when these biases have weakened the validity of the reporter's story. "Journalist are like dogs-whenever anything moves, they begin to bark." (Gladstone, 2011/2013, P.25)

In light of the recent events in Charlottesville, where a white supremacist rally turned violent, the argument on whether or not hate speech should be banned has become increasingly more relevant. Those supporting the ban argue that this kind of speech eventually creates a society that doesn’t accept the affected minorities as equals, and can shame them into silence. On the other side, people argue this would infringe upon free speech rights. In Glenn Greenwald’s article, “In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Being used to Silence Left Wing Beliefs,” he addresses how this ban might affect left-wing activism, and the fallacies in the arguments supporting the ban. Greenwald mainly relies on logos to back up his thesis; that a hate speech ban would not work in America. The problem he faces with this as his argument is that it makes the assumption that these same issues would arise in America. Other than a brief mention of his time as a lawyer to back up one talking point, there is very little ethos. While his tone throughout the article feels very neutral and informative, he makes poor use of logos and ethos, leading to an ineffective argument.

The author of the article discusses the hatred that revolves around the concept of equality in America. The author of the news article uses his knowledge of past events, such as slavery, and current issues. The audience of the article is those who don’t understand why the protests and riots in Charlottesville is an issue to many White Nationalist. The articles compare in the sense that they both discuss hatred that has been revolving on the issue, but they differ on what they speak of, as this article speaking of the president and his issues and the other speaks of the people. In conclusion, after many years of fighting against the hatred in society, there is still a lot to be done.

This article was published nearly a year ago online in the National Review, which hosts articles across a wide conservative spectrum. The intended audience of this article is Americans who do not agree that the freedom of speech portion of the First Amendment is important, or that hate speech should be exempted from it. The week prior to the publishing of this article, two terrorists had attacked the Garland Community Center with gunfire in front of an exhibit depicting cartoon images of Muhammad. The author, Tom Rogan, was based in Washington, DC at the time and was a panelist on The McLaughlin Group and held the Tony Blankley chair at the Steamboat Institute. The McLaughlin Group is a conservative TV program in which citizens discuss the

Steve Chapman, a columnist and editor of the Chicago Tribune, perfectly depicts in his article the ever-growing hostility that America faces, not limiting its tensions to that of which it faces with our foreign adversaries, specifically North Korea, but including that of its internal enemy: the philosophy of racial superiority. Chapman appeals to those who stand against the hatred and prejudice that has come to light on behalf of white nationalists, taking into account the latest incidents of Charlottesville, Virginia. The journalist mentions that, in spite of the recent occurrences that have overtaken Americans in a sudden mental war between differentiating factions, white nationalists face an imminent defeat. Instead of elaborating on how

Rhetoric is also used to a stunning effect. The usage of words such as “angry” “poor” and “violently” subtly tries to appeal to the

Last year, Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for his role in a campaign of racist, sexist harassment directed at Leslie Jones, a “Saturday Night Live” cast member. When Twitter suspended his account, Yiannopoulos denounced it as “cowardly” and declared himself a martyr for the cause of free speech. Twitter, he said, was “a no-go zone for conservatives.” The tacit admission that Yiannopoulos sees targeted abuse of a female African-American comedian as “conservative” is revealing, if only in that it strips away the fig leaf of euphemism separating the alt-right from the hive of racism and sexism that defined last year’s Presidential election. That it was the Berkeley College Republicans who invited him to campus further supported this association. No chemistry department would extend an invitation to an alchemist; no reputable department of psychology would entertain a lecture espousing phrenology. But amid the student conservatives at Berkeley—and along the lecture circuit where he is a sought-after speaker—Yiannopoulos’s toxic brew of bigotries apparently meets their standard for credibility. And this recognition is as big a problem as anything he has said in his talks or in his erstwhile existence as a Twitter troll.

Even back when lynchings occurred the press was very unsympathetic (Perloff, 2000). Though some assumed press refrained from reporting lynching stories, in actuality the press talked about lynchings in graphic details (Perloff, 2000). Southern reporters use sympathetic or kind language when describing lynch mobs but used vulgar and unsympathetic language to describe lynch victims (Perloff, 2000). This is very similar today’s media coverage of black protest. Today’s media use terms such as “rioting,” “violent,” “lawlessness,” “criminals,” “thugs,” and “animals” to describe black protest (Brave New Films, 2015). However, when there is a white group tearing down a city after a big game, terms such as “young people,” “fans,” “celebrating,” and “passionate” are used (Brave New Films,

The Left have popularized using tragedies as an impetus for political change, via the Media, because it garners attention and instills a base of support for change. However, this approach is misguided. The Media is powerless! In conservative commentator Ben Shapiro’s column, “What an American Hero Looks Like”, he states: “It isn’t the Twitter battles that stand between the monsters and children.” Furthermore, he argues, policy change is inept because “laws and regulations failed” to save 26 people from a massacre in rural Texas.

In order to explore these well-defined frames in the media, we have narrowed down the period to focus on the key events that have caused more recent responses in the media. To explore this, we will be using framing and cultivation theory to examine how individuals feel regarding the hashtags and compare this to how the media is portraying the movement in the media. As mentioned above, the BLM and ALM movement have been in the news off and on for a while. However, we have chosen to focus our study on the news regarding the BLM and ALM movements starting on February 24, 2015 through August 10, 2015. February 24, 2015 was chosen as the starting point as this was the day that the Justice Department announced that they were no longer pursuing a federal hate crime case relating to the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida (Berman &Horwitz 2015). This particular event helped the BLM movement gain momentum in the media and online. This allows us the opportunity to examine the frames during peak points in public interest and to include some more recent deaths that have been connected to the

Framing, described by Robert M. Entman, is the process by which reporters make “information more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences.” (Entman, 1993) Frames provide salience through “placement, repetition, and association with culturally familiar symbols.” (Entman, 1993) These frames, however, are manipulated to direct audiences to consider certain features or key points and to ignore or minimize others. (Kendall, 2011) That is not to say that what is excluded from the frame is insignificant. The “power of a frame can be as great as that of language itself.” (Entman, 1993) Conversely, information that is excluded from a frame speaks volumes as well. In the case of poverty, societal influences are most often ignored due to isolated, episodic frames.

Video shots are all about composition. Instead of pointing the camera at your subjects, what you need to do is to compose an image. Framing is that very process of making forming composition.

The way the media frame issues has a subtle yet significant effect on the general public. Studies have shown that frames can help determine which procedures we find medically necessary (Edwards, Elwyn, Covey, Matthews, & Pill, 2001), can influence our ability to recall critical details of a news story (Valkenburg, 2000), and can even subtly influence elections (Shah, Domke, & Wackman, 1996). Given the impact frames can have on the general public, it is important to have a clear way to conceptualize and measure their effects.

The research for this article was conducted within a framework of Framing theory. The theory was first put forward by a Canadian-American sociologist Erving Goffman. Media framing, to put it bluntly, is a term that points to a presence of a certain bias in any media outlets’ output. All choices made in a newsroom collectively form the frame through which media decides to show the world to the audiences. Everything matters: Covering one event and ignoring another, covering one event more than the other, deciding what words to use to cover an event, what photographs or video clips to include, whom to give a voice, etc. At the same time, framing theory goes far beyond newsroom policies. Framing is not necessarily a delibirate choice. Journalists themselves look at the world through frames: their education, upbringing, gender, ethnical background, knowledge of the issue, and so on. Audience members apply their own frames as well, not just to media content, but to everything they hear and see.