In this episode, we start with another,
very nice example from the United States.
In 2012, Newt Gingrich is seeking the Republican Party’s
presidential nomination.
He takes on several other candidates, including Mitt Romney,
who eventually triumphs in the primaries.
One of the primary debates takes place in South Carolina.
A few days before the debate, Gingrich’s ex-wife appears in the media.
It is already widely known that Gingrich had an affair during his first marriage.
However, his ex-wife also reveals some new details,
specifically that Gingrich proposed that they have an open marriage.
John King, the debate moderator,
opens with the following question:
King: As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News
and another interview with The Washington Post.
And this story has now gone viral on the internet.
In it, she says that you came to her in 1999,
at a time when you were having an affair.
She says you asked her, sir,
to enter into an open marriage.
Would you like to take some time to respond to that?
This is a very tricky question.
A positive response – “yes’ I must admit, I proposed an open marriage” - will harm Gingrich.
A denial – “no, I did not propose an open marriage” – could
be equally damaging.
Maybe you should take a few seconds to think about the framing question.
Gingrich responds as follows:
Gingrich: No, but I will.
I think the destructive, vicious,
negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country,
harder to attract decent people to run for public office.
And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.
King: Is that all you want to say, sir?
Gingrich: Let me finish.
King: Please.
Gingrich: Every person in here knows personal pain.
Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things.
To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential
campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.
My – my two daughters – my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that
it was wrong, that they should pull it,
and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a
presidential debate.
King: As you noted, Mr. Speaker,
this story did not come from our network.
As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign.
I’m not – I get your point.
I take your point.
Gingrich: John,
it was repeated by your network.
You chose to start the debate with it.
Don’t try to blame somebody else.
You and your staff chose to start this debate with it.
Let me be quite clear.
The story is false.
Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false.
We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false.
They weren’t interested because they would like to attack any Republican.
They’re attacking the governor.
They’re attacking me.
I’m sure they’ll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.
I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.
This is an example of meta-framing.
Gingrich does not step into the frame about whether or not he proposed an open marriage.
Instead, he says something about the frame.
He claims that it is outrageous that he has been asked this question.
Questions of this kind are precisely what prevents people from wanting to run for public office.
In John King’s frame, Gingrich is the villain,
but by using meta-framing he turns the tables on CNN,
John King and the elite media.
Now they are the villains.
The discussion is now no longer about whether or not he proposed an open marriage but about
the media’s audacity to ask such outrageous questions.
Gingrich obviously has to say something on the subject of the open marriage,
which he does, but it is no longer the main issue.
The next example, again very nice,
takes us to Australia.
In 2012, Julia Gillard is Prime Minister of Australia.
Her party commands a narrow parliamentary majority.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, who supports Gillard’s government,
is accused of sending sexist text messages.
The Leader of the Opposition argues that the Speaker should resign,
and Gillard is thus faced with a difficult question.
If she agrees with the opposition leader, she will endanger her parliamentary majority.
But if she disagrees with the opposition leader, she will appear to be condoning sexism;
Instead, she also uses the strategy of meta-framing:
I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man.
I will not.
And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man.
Not now, not ever.
The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists
are not appropriate for high office.
Well I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out
his resignation.
Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia,
he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives,
he needs a mirror.
That’s what he needs.
Gillard provides an overview of the Leader of the Opposition’s own sexist statements
and behavior and concludes:
Misogyny, sexism, every day from this Leader of the Opposition.
Every day in every way, across the time the Leader of the Opposition
has sat in that chair and I’ve sat in this chair,
that is all we have heard from him.
If sexism is reprehensible, as the Leader of the Opposition claims,
then he should surely resign himself.
Gillard does not step into her opponent’s frame.
Instead, she says something about his frame.
Like Gingrich, she claims that it is outrageous that he even
dares to say such things.
In conclusion, meta-framing is a powerful strategy.
It prevents you from stepping into your opponent’s frame but goes further than the other reframing
strategies that we have discussed so far.
In the case of meta-framing, you actually condemn your opponent’s frame.
Is Gingrich a villain?
No, CNN,
John King and the elite media are the true villains.
Is the Speaker of the House of Representatives a villain?
No, but the Leader of the Opposition is.