Framing raises certain moral issues.
Should it even be allowed?
Doesn’t it oversimplify issues in a way that could be dangerous?
Or at the very least unfair?
Doesn’t it distract us from what really matters?
What is the difference between framing and manipulation?
We are not going to answer these questions in this episode.
Instead, we will present several views on the moral
aspects of framing.
It is up to you to form you own opinion on this issue.
There is some overlap between the various views presented in this episode,
but one thing will hopefully become clear: although the question regarding the moral
aspects of framing seems pretty straightforward, the answer is anything but.
Framing is nothing more than political game.
Politicians are trying to, to seduce us into voting for them using superficial
images and slogans.
Reality is obviously much more complex.
I think that framing is dangerous.
It’s a form of populism.
And you know personally, I would never use framing.
as a scientist.
My work focuses on climate change.
I believe that mankind has a moral responsibility to fight global warming.
As scientists, we must present the results of our research
in a convincing manner in order to influence public opinion.
It is therefore important to think about how we frame these results.
If we have a moral responsibility to counter global warming,
we also have a moral responsibility to come up with good frames.
There are people who are living in this country illegally.
Who crossed the border by breaking the rules.
These people are illegal immigrants.
There are no two ways about it.
Our opponents refer to them as undocumented workers,
but this is a frame, and they are using it to cover up the truth.
This frame – and the use of frames in general – is immoral.
There are people who live in this country without proper documentation.
Some of them have lived here for fifteen years or more.
These undocumented workers do the dirty jobs that no one else is prepared to do.
Some of them have two or three jobs and don’t take a dime from the government.
In fact, certain parts of the economy would collapse
if not for them.
We profit from these people, who make our lives more comfortable.
Our opponents refer to them as illegal immigrants, but this is a frame,
and they are using it to cover up the truth.
This frame – and the use of frames in general – is immoral.
Guys, listen up,
our opponents have a very powerful frame that claims they are “tough on crime.” It implies
that we are not tough on crime, even though we are tougher on crime than they are.
They don’t even bother prosecuting white-collar criminals,
so I’m not interested in discussing the moral aspects of framing.
We need to come up with a frame of our own, and we need to do so fast.
Otherwise the whole country will accept the nonsense they are spouting as the truth.
Now, that is the moral issue:
white color criminals.
Right?
Let’s get to work.
What is – and what is not – a frame?
There is no such thing as objective reality.
Everyone perceives things differently, so there cannot be a single criterion for
determining whether or not a certain message constitutes a frame.
One person’s calculated frame is another person’s principled standpoint.
Personally speaking, I am against frames,
and I would not consider using them under normal circumstances.
However, our opponents keep coming up with powerful
frames that help them to attract voters and sway public opinion.
I believe we have no choice but to participate in the game of framing of reframing.
I don’t believe in this traditional types of development aid.
I mean, I’ve been there.
I’ve lived there.
And I believe that, instead of giving poor people fish,
we should teach them how to fish.
Framing?
This is the essence of what I believe.
We cannot and should not encourage dependency, we should empower people.
Trust me, subsidies and development aid are toxic in
the long run.
They really are.
Is framing superficial?
Are slogans one-dimensional?
Are philosophers small-minded?
Absolutely not.
In fact, some of the greatest philosophers had a big
impact precisely because of their powerful slogans (or aphorisms).
Thomas Hobbes famously said “homo homini lupus est”.
That means a man is a wolf to man, and Marx’s critique of capitalism is often
summarized as “the rich get more rich and the poor get more poor.” These phrases are
simple not because these men were simple thinkers but because they were great thinkers.
I don’t know much about politics.
It’s pretty complicated.
I believe that politicians should use plain language to say what they want or what
they are doing.
Is framing good or bad?
I’m not even sure what framing is.
A famous quote by the American journalist H.L.
Mencken states: “For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple,
and wrong.” This is a perfect example of a frame.
Ronald Reagan once said “Facts are stupid things,” and was widely dismissed as a trivial
shallow B-movie actor.
However, when Nietzsche said “There are no facts,
only interpretations,” his words were hailed as a profound philosophical insight.