1 00:00:07,740 --> 00:00:09,920 In this episode, we start with another, 2 00:00:09,920 --> 00:00:12,629 very nice example from the United States. 3 00:00:12,629 --> 00:00:17,119 In 2012, Newt Gingrich is seeking the Republican Party’s 4 00:00:17,119 --> 00:00:18,930 presidential nomination. 5 00:00:18,930 --> 00:00:22,270 He takes on several other candidates, including Mitt Romney, 6 00:00:22,270 --> 00:00:25,279 who eventually triumphs in the primaries. 7 00:00:25,279 --> 00:00:28,699 One of the primary debates takes place in South Carolina. 8 00:00:28,699 --> 00:00:35,000 A few days before the debate, Gingrich’s ex-wife appears in the media. 9 00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:39,140 It is already widely known that Gingrich had an affair during his first marriage. 10 00:00:39,140 --> 00:00:43,659 However, his ex-wife also reveals some new details, 11 00:00:43,659 --> 00:00:48,489 specifically that Gingrich proposed that they have an open marriage. 12 00:00:48,489 --> 00:00:51,049 John King, the debate moderator, 13 00:00:51,049 --> 00:00:53,570 opens with the following question: 14 00:00:53,570 --> 00:00:56,559 King: As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News 15 00:00:56,559 --> 00:00:58,170 and another interview with The Washington Post. 16 00:00:58,170 --> 00:01:00,739 And this story has now gone viral on the internet. 17 00:01:00,739 --> 00:01:03,890 In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, 18 00:01:03,890 --> 00:01:06,140 at a time when you were having an affair. 19 00:01:06,140 --> 00:01:07,850 She says you asked her, sir, 20 00:01:07,850 --> 00:01:09,580 to enter into an open marriage. 21 00:01:09,580 --> 00:01:12,600 Would you like to take some time to respond to that? 22 00:01:12,600 --> 00:01:14,840 This is a very tricky question. 23 00:01:14,840 --> 00:01:20,600 A positive response – “yes’ I must admit, I proposed an open marriage” - will harm Gingrich. 24 00:01:20,600 --> 00:01:25,509 A denial – “no, I did not propose an open marriage” – could 25 00:01:25,509 --> 00:01:27,530 be equally damaging. 26 00:01:27,530 --> 00:01:32,490 Maybe you should take a few seconds to think about the framing question. 27 00:01:32,490 --> 00:01:34,590 Gingrich responds as follows: 28 00:01:34,720 --> 00:01:44,900 Gingrich: No, but I will. 29 00:01:46,179 --> 00:01:51,179 I think the destructive, vicious, 30 00:01:51,179 --> 00:01:56,599 negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, 31 00:01:56,600 --> 00:01:59,960 harder to attract decent people to run for public office. 32 00:01:59,969 --> 00:02:05,950 And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that. 33 00:02:16,820 --> 00:02:18,520 King: Is that all you want to say, sir? 34 00:02:18,520 --> 00:02:19,360 Gingrich: Let me finish. 35 00:02:19,360 --> 00:02:21,560 King: Please. 36 00:02:22,450 --> 00:02:27,190 Gingrich: Every person in here knows personal pain. 37 00:02:27,200 --> 00:02:33,880 Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. 38 00:02:33,890 --> 00:02:40,890 To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential 39 00:02:42,180 --> 00:02:49,180 campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. 40 00:02:52,240 --> 00:02:59,240 My – my two daughters – my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that 41 00:03:00,550 --> 00:03:03,660 it was wrong, that they should pull it, 42 00:03:03,660 --> 00:03:09,380 and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a 43 00:03:09,380 --> 00:03:14,980 presidential debate. 44 00:03:19,120 --> 00:03:20,600 King: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, 45 00:03:20,610 --> 00:03:22,340 this story did not come from our network. 46 00:03:22,340 --> 00:03:24,710 As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. 47 00:03:24,710 --> 00:03:25,940 I’m not – I get your point. 48 00:03:25,940 --> 00:03:26,640 I take your point. 49 00:03:26,640 --> 00:03:27,020 Gingrich: John, 50 00:03:27,020 --> 00:03:29,060 John, it was repeated by your network. 51 00:03:29,060 --> 00:03:30,990 You chose to start the debate with it. 52 00:03:30,990 --> 00:03:32,870 Don’t try to blame somebody else. 53 00:03:32,870 --> 00:03:35,770 You and your staff chose to start this debate with it. 54 00:03:35,770 --> 00:03:38,510 Let me be quite clear. 55 00:03:38,510 --> 00:03:41,250 Let me be quite clear. 56 00:03:41,250 --> 00:03:43,320 The story is false. 57 00:03:43,320 --> 00:03:47,230 Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. 58 00:03:47,230 --> 00:03:49,970 We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. 59 00:03:49,970 --> 00:03:53,680 They weren’t interested because they would like to attack any Republican. 60 00:03:53,680 --> 00:03:54,920 They’re attacking the governor. 61 00:03:54,920 --> 00:03:55,700 They’re attacking me. 62 00:03:55,700 --> 00:04:00,310 I’m sure they’ll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul. 63 00:04:00,310 --> 00:04:05,250 I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans. 64 00:04:05,250 --> 00:04:08,200 This is an example of meta-framing. 65 00:04:08,210 --> 00:04:13,290 Gingrich does not step into the frame about whether or not he proposed an open marriage. 66 00:04:13,290 --> 00:04:17,560 Instead, he says something about the frame. 67 00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:21,740 He claims that it is outrageous that he has been asked this question. 68 00:04:21,740 --> 00:04:27,500 Questions of this kind are precisely what prevents people from wanting to run for public office. 69 00:04:28,320 --> 00:04:32,060 In John King’s frame, Gingrich is the villain, 70 00:04:32,069 --> 00:04:35,669 but by using meta-framing he turns the tables on CNN, 71 00:04:35,669 --> 00:04:38,099 John King and the elite media. 72 00:04:38,099 --> 00:04:40,610 Now they are the villains. 73 00:04:40,610 --> 00:04:45,509 The discussion is now no longer about whether or not he proposed an open marriage but about 74 00:04:45,509 --> 00:04:50,049 the media’s audacity to ask such outrageous questions. 75 00:04:50,049 --> 00:04:54,340 Gingrich obviously has to say something on the subject of the open marriage, 76 00:04:54,349 --> 00:04:58,280 which he does, but it is no longer the main issue. 77 00:04:58,280 --> 00:05:00,699 The next example, again very nice, 78 00:05:00,699 --> 00:05:02,050 takes us to Australia. 79 00:05:02,050 --> 00:05:06,819 In 2012, Julia Gillard is Prime Minister of Australia. 80 00:05:06,819 --> 00:05:10,939 Her party commands a narrow parliamentary majority. 81 00:05:10,939 --> 00:05:15,469 The Speaker of the House of Representatives, who supports Gillard’s government, 82 00:05:15,469 --> 00:05:19,319 is accused of sending sexist text messages. 83 00:05:19,319 --> 00:05:23,300 The Leader of the Opposition argues that the Speaker should resign, 84 00:05:23,300 --> 00:05:26,590 and Gillard is thus faced with a difficult question. 85 00:05:26,590 --> 00:05:31,529 If she agrees with the opposition leader, she will endanger her parliamentary majority. 86 00:05:31,529 --> 00:05:37,009 But if she disagrees with the opposition leader, she will appear to be condoning sexism; 87 00:05:37,009 --> 00:05:41,699 Instead, she also uses the strategy of meta-framing: 88 00:05:41,699 --> 00:05:46,719 I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. 89 00:05:46,719 --> 00:05:47,599 I will not. 90 00:05:48,000 --> 00:05:54,220 And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. 91 00:05:54,220 --> 00:05:56,460 Not now, not ever. 92 00:05:56,460 --> 00:06:02,770 The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists 93 00:06:02,770 --> 00:06:05,520 are not appropriate for high office. 94 00:06:05,520 --> 00:06:10,419 Well I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out 95 00:06:10,419 --> 00:06:10,930 his resignation. 96 00:06:10,930 --> 00:06:15,889 Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, 97 00:06:15,889 --> 00:06:19,550 he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives, 98 00:06:19,550 --> 00:06:21,270 he needs a mirror. 99 00:06:21,270 --> 00:06:22,160 That’s what he needs. 100 00:06:22,990 --> 00:06:27,969 Gillard provides an overview of the Leader of the Opposition’s own sexist statements 101 00:06:27,969 --> 00:06:30,639 and behavior and concludes: 102 00:06:30,639 --> 00:06:35,639 Misogyny, sexism, every day from this Leader of the Opposition. 103 00:06:35,640 --> 00:06:40,620 Every day in every way, across the time the Leader of the Opposition 104 00:06:40,620 --> 00:06:43,960 has sat in that chair and I’ve sat in this chair, 105 00:06:43,960 --> 00:06:47,110 that is all we have heard from him. 106 00:06:47,110 --> 00:06:51,210 If sexism is reprehensible, as the Leader of the Opposition claims, 107 00:06:51,210 --> 00:06:53,749 then he should surely resign himself. 108 00:06:53,749 --> 00:06:57,789 Gillard does not step into her opponent’s frame. 109 00:06:57,789 --> 00:07:00,809 Instead, she says something about his frame. 110 00:07:00,809 --> 00:07:04,490 Like Gingrich, she claims that it is outrageous that he even 111 00:07:04,490 --> 00:07:07,509 dares to say such things. 112 00:07:07,509 --> 00:07:12,279 In conclusion, meta-framing is a powerful strategy. 113 00:07:12,279 --> 00:07:17,870 It prevents you from stepping into your opponent’s frame but goes further than the other reframing 114 00:07:17,870 --> 00:07:21,130 strategies that we have discussed so far. 115 00:07:21,130 --> 00:07:26,370 In the case of meta-framing, you actually condemn your opponent’s frame. 116 00:07:26,370 --> 00:07:28,199 Is Gingrich a villain? 117 00:07:28,199 --> 00:07:30,069 No, CNN, 118 00:07:30,069 --> 00:07:33,960 John King and the elite media are the true villains. 119 00:07:33,960 --> 00:07:36,699 Is the Speaker of the House of Representatives a villain? 120 00:07:36,699 --> 00:07:40,569 No, but the Leader of the Opposition is.