Political communicators are skilled at framing the debates over controversial issues through an emphasis on the policy goals that deserve the highest priority, according to themselves rather than the people they communicate with. Such rhetoric affects political attitudes by influencing the importance that individuals place on competing issues. Frames do not only affect opinions on the issues, but they also influence the judgments of the participants in the communication process with regards to the relative importance of competing values.Thus, political persuaders shape the public opinion through the framing of their policy goals and choices (Nelson 581). Politicians attempt to control public perception through the use of words.
Thus an encyclopedia has defined framing as “a process of selective control over the individual’s perception of media, public, or private communication, in particular the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Framing defines how an element of rhetoric is packaged so as to allow certain interpretations and rule out others”.Moreover, media frames may be created by the mass madia as well as specific political and social movements or organizations (“Framing: Communication Theory”). Very often we find that the media works alongside political and social movements to control the perceptions of the public at large through the communication theory of framing. Hence, the media is very frequently heard discussing the “war on terror,” seeing as the politicians have coined the phrase and use it regularly to advise the public about their policies concerning the issue.Another important example of framing in this context is the recent popularization of the term "escalation" to describe an increase in troop levels in war torn Iraq.
This term, “escalation” implies that the United States of America is deliberately heightening the scope of the conflict inmanner that is provocative (“Framing”).Christian Spielvogel writes that both George W. Bush and John Kerry, during the 2004 presidential campaign, relied upon the moral framing of the “war on terrorism” and the situation in Iraq as a battle between “good and evil” in their day to day political discourse. Moreover, President Bush employed this rhetorical frame “to politically and morally cloak the war in Iraq under a larger war on terror.
” One of the principal experts on the communication theory of framing is George Lakeoff, who has written books on the subject as it applies to politics.Lakeoff’s theory of political framing presumes that the political elites are the key framers of political discourse. A typical example offered by Lakeoff to explain political framing is that of the phrase, “tax relief” in place of “tax reform. ” Here, the use of the word “relief” implies that taxes are a burden on the citizen, and the government (as well as the politicians who use the phrase) are concerned about helping the citizen be granted relief from the burden (“Framing”). However, when a political party that does not make up the government uses the phrase “tax relief,” it should have a different effect on the listeners.
In this case, the listeners are most likely to believe that the political party that does not form the government is actually against the alleviation of the citizen’s suffering (Dern). Moreover, the use of the phrase “tax relief” on the part of the ruling party implies that everyone in the nation must love the government anyhow, given that nobody could ever vote against “relief” (Balluff).As far as “tax reform” is concerned, on the other hand, it is harder for the public to trust a promise of tremendous transformations in the tax structure, as implied by the word, “reform. Reforms may, after all, sometimes result in upheaval. Terms that frame political debate seek to reduce the possibilities of discourse by way of setting the vocabulary and metaphors using which an issue must be discussed. Lakeoff believes that framing cannot be avoided in political debate.
Rather, it is an inherent part of political discourse, and of all cognition, both conscious and unconscious. Still, the use of political framing implies that an effort must be made on the part of politicians to frame consciously (“Framing”). This is the reason why politicians employ skilled speech writers in the first place. Lakeoff has proposed a provocative account of electoral politics that highlights the significance of political semantics. He has argued that strategic political communication is pivotal to the outcome of elections.
Discussing both the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States, the linguist has stated that the party that is more capable of integrating issues with values, and the candidate with the sound bite that more intuitively evokes the triggering metaphor for the appropriate value system, wins the election. In Don’t Think of an Elephant! , the linguist has emphasized the framing of political discourse in terms of the fundamental value system, for example, tax relief or permission slip for waging war; rather than in terms of specific measures of performance, effectiveness or a candidate’s personal demeanor.In essence, Lakeoff has asserted that the power of political rhetoric derives first and foremost from the use of particular words and phrases that have the ability to elicit core value systems (Iyengar). “At the most general level,” writes Shanto Iyengar, “framing refers to the way in which opinions about an issue can be altered by emphasizing or deemphasizing particular facets of that issue.
” Lakeoff’s use of the framing concept provides unique understanding in the area.
