Framing and Priming Effects in the Media

There are many factors as mentioned on some of the other postings here that have an effect on shaping the election process. These all include, projecting the image and issue advertisements to influence campaign results, watering down politics to appeal to voter apathy, agenda setting and the like, but two other contributing factors you should be considering as a highly influencing media practices that can control the flow for what is considered important on the campaign trail includes framing and priming.

Framing:
What should be left in and what should be left out? Framing, according to McGrady (2007), "Refers to the way in which opinions about an issue can be altered by emphasizing or de-emphasizing particular facets of that issue. " The concept, first developed by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, pointed out in their research that decisions can be made or changed if they know the outcome as a gain or a loss for that decision. Under these circumstances, framing, the technique used in political addressments, can be used to highlight what the candidate belives is important without straying away by defining their interpretations a certain way. This happens in two ways; equivalencey framing and emphasis framing, where one covers the, "'Use of different, but logically equivalent, words or phrases' to describe the same possible event or issue." and the other, "Involves highlighting different, 'subsets of potentially relevant considerations' of an issue (McGrady p. 218)." The overall goal behind these two forms of communication in politics usually come from one derrived goal, persuasion. Candidates want people to believe and agree with the same ideas that they do. This is extremely important to achieveing success on the campaign trail and in the long run, without the right persuasion, could end a political career for a nominee.
It is important for you to be media literate about framing because it is potentially a harmful practice becasue of its potential to neglect important facts about what the presidents plans really are. Do not take everything for granted on this. Framing is a powerful tool used by both the media and candidates to get what they want or to reach out and distribute a message about a partcular policy or support for them. often, out for the best interest of the one doing the framing. Along with framing, priming goes hand in hand because of its tendency to come from the medias perspective of candidates compared to their own projections as worthy nominees.

Priming
Here, the media chooses the criteria by which political leaders are judged. Often, the more prominent an issue is in the candidacy, the more influence it has on the publics assesment of the candidate. When there is a job to be done in this nation and on the terms of issue ownership, where a party is more likely to control the decisions over a particular topic, priming gets the medias attention by providing coverage over that particular issue along with the candidate most suited to talk on the issue and gain support. This process is a sort of finding the best person for the job like concept. Look closely at the levels of priming especially towards the end of the year when elections are taking place, there usually are very clear correlations to what news is being covered and how the head to head candidates each fit into those controversies in order to better tell who would best be suited for the new year.

Being Media Literate
There is an issue though concerning this, along with the problems mentioned with the practice of adgenda setting on issues in America, priming can mislead audiences apathetic to the electoral process. priming can give the false impression that one candidate can lead better over another without actually giving justice or coverage from both sides. be weary here when the media tells you which candidate is going to do the better job. get out there and research for yourself and see how a candidate's preceeding policies or practices in governmet work may influence how they would handle a national situation. Don't let the biases of new corporations decide because of party related politics. Get out there and become educated on the media effects of priming and framing!

Discussion questions:

1. Why do you think that priming practices are elevated especially right before elections in November? For instance, why would a candidate have a better chance for getting their message across when it comes down to the wire. Think contemporary issues.
2. Is priming fair? Should the media eliminate priming in order to eliminate biases against candidates of another party that don't particularly support certain policies or is that the point of priming?
3. When candidates and the media use framing to get the "important parts" of a message across, do you think they are always telling the truth. Where is the line drawn between what's important and what is not?
   
4. How is framing different from agenda setting?

References:

Iyengar, S., & McGrady, J. A. (2007). Media politics: A citizen’s guide. New York: W. W. Norton.

Agenda Setting

With an understanding of agenda setting theory, a voter can more reasonably assess his or her political choices and attitudes. The application of this theory can almost be like taking a behind-the-scenes look at understanding how and why voters decide what is most important in political campaigns. Since much of the population is dependent on the news media as one of their only sources of information during political campaigns, the media has a great deal of influence on the population.

Benoit (2007) offers a very clear and concise description of agenda setting: “[B.C.] Cohen succinctly expressed the basic idea of agenda setting when he wrote that the press ‘may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about’” (206). The news media uses a very strong influence over the public to help them determine the most important and pressing issues of political campaigns.

Through our day-to-day media exposures, we are told what to think about. The news media covers certain issues more than others; therefore, voters begin to believe that these issues are some of the most important ones facing the nation. We are allowing the media to set the public agenda. So, the dialogues within media politics aren’t necessarily about the most important issues—they’re about what the media discusses the most. It seems as though recognition and frequency are translating to importance.

It’s important that the public understands that there are more ways of being an informed voter. If you know that the media is going to stress topics that its own agenda deems most important, you have the capability to become more knowledgeable by seeking out other sources of information, thus gaining an understanding of issues that may not be presented in the media.

Politicians use this to their advantage. According to Iyengar (2007), “Policy makers know that when the media spotlight is aimed at a particular issues, they are likely to have greater success in proposing or moving along legislation on that issue” (213). Thus, agenda setting gives politicians an advantage at the same time as telling the public what to think about. It’s a lot of power placed in the media’s hands.

Discussion Questions:

1. Besides watching the TV news or reading a newspaper, where can you find what you want to know about elections?
   
2. Some people say that the media just discuss what the public thinks is important. Do you think there is any truth to this?
   
3. Do you think voters should be more active and search for information about elections on their own, or should they feel like they can trust the media to give them the information they need in order to make informed decisions?
   

References:
Benoit, W. (2007). Communication in Political Campaigns. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Iyengar, S., & McGrady, J. A. (2007). Media politics: A citizen’s guide. New York: W. W. Norton.

Issue Ownership

When Americans think about politics, it is inevitable that we think of the Republican and Democratic parties as separates.  Furthermore, we think of each political party standing behind different issues that are held within our country and both Republicans and Democrats are known for "owning" certain prominent issues.  Democrats are know for dealing with issues about health care, education, and social policies, while Republicans are more involved with military action, national defense and crime issues. These issues have been known to increase issue knowledge if specifics, influence perceptions on candidates character, and alter attitudes of issues that parties own.  It is said that Democratic and Republican politicians who stand for opposing issues have almost a 90% losing rate in their party. 

There is also the issue of Battleground States when dealing with  Republican and Democratic differences.  In this election, there is said to be 15 states voting Democratic, 19 states voting Republican, and 17 states are toss-ups or battleground states.  11 of the battleground states have tended to go Republican in recent elections such as Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Altogether, these states have 114 electoral votes. The other 6 battleground states are more likely to go Democratic, which are Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Together, these states have only 76 electoral votes. 

What is really the issue of the outcome of the 2008 election, and any other election is electoral votes.  Electoral votes come from the Electoral College which is a set of electors who are empowered to elect a candidate to a particular office.  Each state then has a certain amount of electoral voters based on the size of their region.  The electoral votes make up the outcome of each election, so the battleground states relate to this issue because if the state votes Republican or Democratic, then the electoral voters must vote the way that their state's people voted.  

Discussion Questions:

1. Is there certain political issues that the media has linked in your knowledge with specific parties? If so, list some examples.
   
2. Do you think it's fair that young voters begin their political lives with these "stereotypes" of which party wins which issue?
   

Image Advertisement Vs. Issue Advertisements

In the world of modern politics, with the high emphasis of political media coverage, the common practices of running candidates today have morphed to accommodate new waves of mass communications. That is, getting their messages across pertaining to their projections as icons in the public eye. Here, an effective moderator to the candidate's message is the radio or television spot, reflecting two perspectives that often control the ad's angle or point of inflection. These two forms are known as image advertisements and issue advertisements. Each, although very similar in their implementation through the use of media, have very different goals as far as reaching out with a certain projection of either their policy approaches or their personal credentials qualifying them for the position. 

Image Ads:

Are described as having the ability to  maintain thematic continuity with the biographical message by presenting the candidate as a likable human being with strong sense of public service (McGrady 2007). The image ad is important because it creates the relationship between the nominee and the people by portraying the candidate as the "people's candidate," someone who has had relatively the same upbringing as a majority of the American population.

Issue Ads:

Fall into two basic categories that each pertain to how the candidate wishes to display their achievements as a liable nominee. These include, touting the sponsoring candidate's experiences and proven accomplishments to better convince audiences about their willingness to serve as a public servant. Or, issue ads may take on the role of summarizing the candidate's preferences on public policy. Either way, the emphasis on the goals and plans a nominee distributes through an issue ad is based from the perspective of good policies for the American people.

Utilizing Media Literacy:

The importance to the distinction between these forms of communication lies in depicting the messages that candidate's are trying to get across as relevant or at the same time good for the overall campaign. Utilizing effective media literacy on both of these forms can enhance one's understanding of the issues that are beneficial to the nation as a whole. 

It is up to you to brush up on your knowledge of what the candidates are saying about themselves and their ideas as to how America should be run. Understanding this seemingly fundamental use of modern politics can lead to greater appreciation to the process necessary to decide this nations leader. Try researching something you hear a candidate speak about. See if their information is the same as polls or news reports. Get involved in knowing the true purposes behind governmental decisions and electoral tactics. The more knowledgeable someone is about politics, the less likely they are of boldly accepting everything the media tells them to.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why wouldn't anyone tend to support a candidate who was raised in a rich suburban home and had everything growing up?
2. Which, if either, form of issue ad makes a greater impact between public appeal and and the candidate's projection of themselves and their policies? Think of which has more importance to sustaining the infrastructure of the American government.
3. Name three (3) ways you can make yourself more media literate about image and issue advertisements. 

References:

Iyengar, S., & McGrady, J. A. (2007). Media politics: A citizen’s guide. New York: W. W. Norton.

Horse Race

A major concern with the coverage of elections is the constant political handicapping by the media, also known as the horse race. The term "horse race" refers to the media's way of focusing on how a political candidate is faring during an election by trying to predict the outcome of the election, instead of focusing on the issues at hand.

There is a very fine line between horse race coverage, and non horse race coverage. For instance, a media outlet covering one candidate's viewpoint on the environment is an example of non horse race coverage. The media is strictly reporting what that candidate's policy. However, a report that focuses on voters' reactions to a candidate's policy is an example of horse race coverage. The media here is focusing on the reactions of other people, instead of sticking to the issues and policies.

Voters are definitely interested in the horse race, but it's up to the media to know when to talk about that, and when they should give the straight viewpoints of the candidates. The horse race has always been a major focal point in elections, and it has become even bigger now with the rapid growth of the Internet. However, voters need to be literate enough to be able to avoid getting caught up in the horse race coverage.

Discussion Questions:

1. What are some ways the media can avoid crossing the fine line between horse race coverage and non horse race coverage?
   
2. What are some things that voters can do to avoid getting caught up in the horse race and the media's portrayal of it?

Dumbing Down Politics

The media's role as government watchdog has vanished in today's over saturated media environment. With more choices for the consumer on where to get their news, the media presentation of political campaigns has abandoned reporting just the facts and tilted the election process towards entertainment. The mass media fail to provide the voters with substantial policy platforms from the candidates and instead focus on their latest slip ups and gotcha moments caught on tape. The election process has become a contest to see who can avoid the media feeding frenzy following the slightest gaffe on the campaign trail. Candidates hire teams of specialists to present a positive image without ever having to take a stance on the issues. The media no longer presents the positions of the candidates because it is assumed that the public is not capable of understanding the issues and making an informed decision. Today the experts tell the public who to vote for so the public doesn't have to think about it. Character ads replace policy ads and the media treat the voters like small children that couldn't possibly comprehend the tough issues facing the next elected official. The infantilization of politics has dangerous consequences when the voters are not given the option to make an informed decision. It has the more serious consequence of disengaging voters and turning the polling booths into ghost towns on Election Tuesday.

Discussion Questions:

1. Where can voters go to get policy information from candidates in order to make an informed decision?
2. What useful information can voters gain from the media's coverage of political campaigns?
3. Can voters make an informed decision from just using mainstream media, or is individual effort to acquire outside information necessary?