1
00:00:08,910 --> 00:00:12,719
Once you’ve come up with a good frame,
what does it do?

2
00:00:12,719 --> 00:00:16,559
This episode is about the impact of frames.

3
00:00:16,980 --> 00:00:19,259
Opponents of development aid have a frame:

4
00:00:19,259 --> 00:00:23,740
Don’t give a poor man a fish;
teach him how to fish.

5
00:00:23,740 --> 00:00:29,150
Now suppose a development minister is faced
with this frame and has to defend herself.

6
00:00:29,150 --> 00:00:32,010
She could say something like this:

7
00:00:32,960 --> 00:00:36,980
‘This is a very simplistic interpretation
of my policy.

8
00:00:37,300 --> 00:00:41,980
Fishing rods… Cheap rhetoric.

9
00:00:41,980 --> 00:00:45,440
My policy has always been to empower people.

10
00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:52,440
It goes without saying that I am committed
to handing out fishing rods rather than fish.

11
00:00:52,520 --> 00:00:58,539
The essence of my policy is to teach people
how to fish.’

12
00:00:58,539 --> 00:01:04,640
This defense may succeed in convincing others,
but the minister is taking a big risk by stepping

13
00:01:04,640 --> 00:01:07,039
into her opponents’ frame.

14
00:01:07,039 --> 00:01:09,930
What impact does this have?

15
00:01:09,930 --> 00:01:11,610
The first effect.

16
00:01:11,610 --> 00:01:13,970
In her statement,
the minister uses the language

17
00:01:13,970 --> 00:01:17,270
the words and images
of her opponent.

18
00:01:17,500 --> 00:01:21,640
Language is not a neutral vehicle for conveying
information:

19
00:01:21,640 --> 00:01:23,990
it is loaded with value.

20
00:01:23,990 --> 00:01:30,990
If you use your opponents’ language,
you give their frame free airtime.

21
00:01:31,700 --> 00:01:37,030
Suppose we had watched a debate on television,
including this statement of the minister.

22
00:01:37,030 --> 00:01:40,239
What would we remember about it a few days
later?

23
00:01:40,239 --> 00:01:44,360
If nothing else,
it would be the message that instead of giving

24
00:01:44,360 --> 00:01:48,970
poor people fish,
you should teach them how to fish.

25
00:01:48,970 --> 00:01:51,550
Thanks to this minister.

26
00:01:51,550 --> 00:01:52,739
The second effect is obvious.

27
00:01:52,739 --> 00:01:58,489
By stepping into your opponents’ frame,
you put yourself on the defensive.

28
00:01:58,489 --> 00:02:02,520
That is never a comfortable position to be
in.

29
00:02:02,520 --> 00:02:06,470
The third effect,
imagine for a moment that we

30
00:02:06,470 --> 00:02:09,080
the audience
have been convinced that the “teach them

31
00:02:09,080 --> 00:02:11,580
how to fish” frame makes sense.

32
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:17,920
This will have a strong impact on the division
of the burden of proof in the debate.

33
00:02:18,160 --> 00:02:23,390
Suppose that a politician who opposes development
aid presents two reports describing failed

34
00:02:23,390 --> 00:02:24,960
development projects.

35
00:02:25,620 --> 00:02:29,700
There may be twenty other reports on projects
that have been successful.

36
00:02:30,240 --> 00:02:32,860
However,
because we are observing the debate through

37
00:02:32,870 --> 00:02:38,360
the “teach them how to fish” frame,
the two negative reports are enough to confirm

38
00:02:38,360 --> 00:02:41,990
our views and convince us that,
once again,

39
00:02:41,990 --> 00:02:47,500
we have been giving poor people fish instead
of teaching them how to fish.

40
00:02:47,500 --> 00:02:51,240
In other words,
we are inclined to impose a lighter burden

41
00:02:51,240 --> 00:02:58,190
of proof on the owner of the frame and a heavier
burden of proof on those who challenge it.

42
00:02:58,190 --> 00:03:00,630
The fourth effect relates to complexity.

43
00:03:00,860 --> 00:03:06,540
Frames are almost always simple,
but a simple frame often requires a complicated

44
00:03:06,540 --> 00:03:07,240
response.

45
00:03:08,060 --> 00:03:09,080
An example:

46
00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:14,440
a road authority has built a new tunnel that
is experiencing many accidents and traffic

47
00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:15,640
jams.

48
00:03:15,640 --> 00:03:20,840
The authority’s chief engineer is asked
to explain why there are so many problems

49
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:22,380
with the tunnel.

50
00:03:22,380 --> 00:03:27,940
Her opponent is a politician who has criticized
the road authority for many years.

51
00:03:27,940 --> 00:03:30,680
Take a look at the following discussion:

52
00:03:31,720 --> 00:03:37,480
‘This tunnel has a new type of road marking
that confuses some motorists and we are going

53
00:03:37,490 --> 00:03:38,970
to fix that.

54
00:03:39,500 --> 00:03:42,920
We’re also going to look into the lighting
in the tunnel.

55
00:03:42,920 --> 00:03:46,500
Motorists have said that the tunnel is a bit
too dark at certain points,

56
00:03:46,500 --> 00:03:49,540
especially where the road curves slightly.’

57
00:03:49,540 --> 00:03:52,860
‘Look,
of course we have to talk about road markings

58
00:03:52,860 --> 00:03:54,680
and lighting and curves.

59
00:03:55,180 --> 00:03:58,120
But there is a far more fundamental problem
here.

60
00:03:58,120 --> 00:04:04,000
The road authority no longer has the expertise
to build this type of tunnel.

61
00:04:04,920 --> 00:04:07,940
Your managers have made your organization
“lean and mean.”

62
00:04:07,940 --> 00:04:12,130
As a result,
you have lost all your expertise.

63
00:04:12,130 --> 00:04:17,340
And when you don’t have the expertise,
things go wrong.

64
00:04:17,340 --> 00:04:20,600
We do not lack expertise.

65
00:04:21,280 --> 00:04:26,260
We have more than a hundred senior engineers
working for us.

66
00:04:26,270 --> 00:04:32,060
We invest a great deal of time and money in
our people’s professional development.

67
00:04:32,060 --> 00:04:35,590
We make sure that we keep up with the latest
innovations.

68
00:04:35,590 --> 00:04:38,970
And all our work processes are certified.

69
00:04:39,460 --> 00:04:44,460
‘I understand completely that you are investing
heavily in professional development,

70
00:04:44,470 --> 00:04:48,190
because there is a lack of expertise within
your organization.

71
00:04:48,190 --> 00:04:53,560
We are hearing this from the market,
from contractors and even from sources within

72
00:04:53,560 --> 00:04:56,130
the road authority itself.

73
00:04:56,130 --> 00:05:01,350
When there is a lack of expertise,
things inevitably go wrong.

74
00:05:03,700 --> 00:05:04,580
Look,
I just… 

75
00:05:06,060 --> 00:05:08,020
The road authority does not have

76
00:05:08,030 --> 00:05:09,410
enough expertise.

77
00:05:09,680 --> 00:05:12,960
Engineers without technical expertise?

78
00:05:12,960 --> 00:05:17,430
This frame attacks the authority’s core
values.

79
00:05:17,430 --> 00:05:19,960
How does the chief engineer respond?

80
00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:22,780
She steps into the politician’s frame.

81
00:05:22,780 --> 00:05:25,070
She has an impressive set of arguments.

82
00:05:25,070 --> 00:05:28,870
However,
because she puts forward four arguments,

83
00:05:28,870 --> 00:05:33,060
she gives the politician four possible ways
to respond.

84
00:05:33,060 --> 00:05:39,040
The politician of course takes the weakest
of the four arguments and builds on it.

85
00:05:39,040 --> 00:05:43,790
The engineer’s response is what we call
a multiple-hurdle response.

86
00:05:43,790 --> 00:05:47,390
One missed hurdle means that the whole race
is lost.