week 3

In the readings for this week, we discussed framing and the cascade model. We learned that the media's political influences arise from how they respond - from their ability to frame news in ways that favor one side or another. The book advances a model of cascading activation as a way to explain who wins. The standard definition of framing is selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues, and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation,and / or solution. We talked about knowledge networks and spreading activation and how first impressions are hard to dislodge. We talked about how cultural congruence measures the ease with which a new frame can cascade through different levels of the framing process and stimulates similar reactions at each step. We also talked about magnitude, or magnifying elements of a depicted reality that favor one side's position, making them salient, while at the same time shrinking those elements that might be used to construct a counter-frame. We concluded that the central goal over all political maneuvering over news frames is simply to generate support or opposition to a political actor or policy. Also, when a single frame thoroughly dominates politically, impressive majorities will come to congruent understandings.

1. Can the way an event is framed backfire, or give unexpected results?
2. Is there any other reason that governments control the way things are frame other than to gain support or opposition for an actor or issue?

1. The framing of an event can backfire if the decision makers in charge of the framing do not take into account who their intended audiences are and who else might possibly view the way they frame something. Emphasizing one element may produce the desired response in the target audience, but if it is viewed by an unintended audience, it may produce serious negative consequences.