Everything is already framed: version 2!

Last week a senior leader working on social causes was heard to assert: “Framing doesn’t
work”.

Given the chance, I would have wholeheartedly agreed that not all framing works in doing
the job you want it to do. There are plenty of campaigns that have hindered their cause in
the long run.

And I would have said that’s precisely why we need to do the research to identify the most effective framing on an issue and then spend the money on applying that framing to communications practice. Both these elements are essential in order for good communications to create social progress.

A year ago I wrote a blog called ‘Everything is already framed’ where I argued that all
communications are framed because all communicators make choices about which ideas
they include, which they exclude, and how they express ideas.

I also argued that we can either assert that we are ‘going to let the facts speak for
themselves’ and deny framing is at work; or be intentional in our framing and choose our
words with care. I believe – as you would expect! – that it is disingenuous to deny frame
effects and that we have a duty to choose our words with care.

The ‘framing doesn’t work’ assertion made me think it was worth another crack at making
the case for why we should be intentional in our communications practice.

In 1993 Robert Entman described framing as: “a way to describe the power of a
communicating text”. This power can be our superpower in seeking change but if we fail to recognise framing power, and do not explicitly consider our framing choices, then our work may backfire. One of two things is likely to happen:

• We may use frames that are counter-productive to achieving our purpose.If we have not fully considered the frames implicit in our choice of words and images, our inclusions or omissions; then how can we be sure we are not leading people to understandings that differ from our intention?For example, if our intention is to draw attention to the lack of affordable, nutritious food in some places; then talking about ‘food choices’ rather than ‘options’ is likely to be counter productive. ‘Choices’ will trigger thinking about individuals’ decision- making or willpower rather than the systems and practices that drive food availability.

• We hand over control of our communication to our audience.Framing provides the audience with cues about how to interpret information. If we omit these cues, we are inviting them to fill in the blanks for themselves. People will default to the frames that are dominant in our culture when they fill in the gaps. And the understandings this leads them to may not be what we intended.Let’s say you want to end junk food advertising to kids. When you assert that child obesity is the result of it being hard for families to eat healthily; people often assume that the solution is something like cooking lessons. But when you fill in the gaps and explain that children’s health is affected by the flood of junk food on our high streets and that better planning rules and advertising restrictions would help increase the flow of healthy options – people are more likely to support these systemic policy changes rather than defaulting to individual-level solutions.

All communication is framed – the choice is only whether to frame mindfully or not. Let’s
not leave it to luck whether or not our framing works in the way that we want.