Every other Tuesday, the team behind Civics 101 joins NHPR’s All Things Considered host Julia Furukawa to talk about how our democratic institutions actually work.
We all have our opinions about certain policies and issues. But how much are those opinions shaped by the language that politicians and the media use?
Civics 101 host Nick Capodice joins Julia to talk about political “framing,” why it’s so effective, and how we can push back against it.
Transcript
Can you give us some background? What is framing?
In politics, framing is the way that politicians, the media and strategists present an issue — as in the words they use to define something that is going on. This is a very old, very effective way to get people to think or feel something without them being conscious that they are doing so.
Let me give you an example. I wanted to make this episode when I read someone on social media saying that opponents of President Trump's recent budget bill should stop referring to it as a “big beautiful bill” because the president purposefully named it that. So Trump called it a “big beautiful bill,” the media echoed it, and people opposed to it did the same. Now they said it ironically, or they called it “Trump's so-called big beautiful bill.” But every single time those words were uttered, it strengthened the president's frame without being aware of it. Our brains heard the words “big, beautiful, big, beautiful.” And it's very difficult for our brains to be unaffected by that.
So, Nick, you said framing is very effective, but why is that? Why is it more effective than, like, arguing with someone and trying to change their mind?
Arguing with someone is really hard. It's hard to convince somebody of something. The reason framing works so well is because we are cognitive misers. Now, the vast majority of the work our brain does is unconscious. This is the stuff that keeps us breathing, it's checking for danger, it makes our heart beat. So whenever our brains can take a shortcut from thinking consciously, it's like, “woo, problem solved!”
You're not going to convince someone who lives in a different frame of your point of view, even with evidence [and] even with entreaties. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about here. Let's ask a question: What's going on on the southern border of the United States? Now, some people refer to this as a “humanitarian crisis.” “We have a humanitarian crisis at the border. What are we going to do about it? Families are being separated, people are being held in rooms without air conditioning. They're sick. They're hurt.”
Now, on the other side, other people are referring to it as an “invasion at the border.” “People are invading the country.”
So without even having a discourse, how can people respond to an invasion versus a humanitarian crisis? Well, one frame mandates water, sleeping bags, medicine care, and the other side mandates barbed wire, guns, walls. So just try to convince someone who uses the frame of invasion that we need to send care to the border. You're not going to succeed, and vice versa.
Well, Nick, what can we do about this? Are we powerless to push back against the frame?
Well, not entirely powerless, Julia. Just acknowledging that framing exists is a tremendous first step. Communications experts in the GOP spent decades making sure that politicians said “climate change” instead of “global warming,” that they said “illegal alien” instead of “undocumented immigrant,” “death tax” instead of “estate tax.” They created the non-medical term “partial birth abortion.”
Now, I am not saying that frames are bad. They are part of telling stories. And they have been since we've pretty much been humans. But if you disagree with somebody, before you launch into claims and evidence and arguments, make sure you agree on what you're calling something because that is far more powerful than people realize.
