I was listening to a report this week on NPR about the release of the Justice Department (now there’s a non-sequitur) memos that provided the legal justification for torture, including the Spanish Inquisition-inspired technique called water-boarding. The memos had finally been released (heavily redacted, of course) thanks to a several-year Freedom of Information effort by the American Civil Liberties Union. In reporting this news about the memos, the NPR journalist kept using the government’s term “enhanced techniques” to describe torture (as in enhanced “interrogation” techniques).

Just another example of the power of “framing” a message.

Framing is an effective way of setting up your message so it will have the maximum impact on the audiences you are trying to reach and influence. Used regularly in the political realm, framing is also employed by business marketers and communicators (whether they realize it or not) to ensure that their messages are heard, understood and accepted.

In the history of framing, the Republican political operatives were long known as the expert practitioners of the craft. Remember how they framed the “estate tax” as the “death tax”? After 9/11, the Bush Administration framed all of its subsequent actions, including the Iraq War, around the term “global war on terror.” The anti abortion movement framed its positions as ”pro-life,” while the opposing side used ”pro-choice.”

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize by framing the looming environmental catastrophe that we now have come to know all too well as “global warming.” President Bush denied the reality of “global warming” for many years, but finally had to admit its existence recently when he could no longer turn his back on the polar ice caps melting right in front of his eyes. But, when he finally did speak of the problem, he framed it as “climate change.” By framing his position this way, Bush made it sound more like a naturally occurring problem (the climate has always changed over the history of time), rather than something created by, or at least profoundly accelerated by, man himself.

It’s all framing. When used effectively, framing couches a message in terms and meaning that are understood and accepted by the intended recipients. The “estate tax” does not really mean much to most people (voters). It is clinical and cold. But, the US Government taxing the “death” of a parent or other loved one certainly hits home in a much more emotional way for most people. Framing at work.

The Democrats finally realized that they were being out-framed by the opposition, so in recent years they started to co-opt the framing methodology to strengthen their own messaging. The leading intellectual resource for the left’s adoption of the art of framing is George Lakoff. A professor of linguistics and cognitive science at UC Berkley, Lakoff has written several books on framing, arguing persuasively that the Democrats need to use the technique to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the American electorate.

In fact, in the past few years the Democrats have, in numerous instances, out-framed the right. This was particularly true in the debate a few years ago over changing the Social Security system to include what the Bush Administration framed as “personal investment accounts.” The Democrats won this debate by framing Bush & Co. as recklessly trying to change the most successful (and popular) government program of all time.

Which brings me back to the US Government’s framing of torture as “enhanced techniques.” As I am sure you can already clearly see, there is a dark side to framing that unfortunately has the effect of supporting propaganda. Sometimes, it’s important for the greater good to just call a spade a spade. Water-boarding is, by most accounts and historical precedent, torture. It is not the corporate sounding term of “enhanced techniques” (sounds more like a form of deep tissue massage). And, in my view, torture should not be “sold” to the American people by legitimizing it through framing. But, that is exactly what has been happening during the past year.

I am all for using framing to maximize the impact of your message. However, I also think that you can easily hurt your credibility by over-stepping the bounds of credulity and believability if you employ the art of framing to hide the true meaning of something.

As they say, you can put lipstick on a pig, but the animal is still a pig. No amount of framing will turn that porker into a Thoroughbred horse.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS