Events of note in the world of strategic framing and communications – from the Topos perspective
Writing in The Nation, reporter Greg Kaufmann updates readers on the national campaign to include discussion of poverty policy in the Presidential debates. He interviewed Topos Senior Fellow Margy Waller about reframing the public dialogue.
Waller said research suggests that the way we usually talk about poverty—even using the words “poverty” and “welfare” themselves—“makes most people think about people who don’t work, and bad personal choices, and irresponsibility. People’s beliefs are now so hardened in that stereotype, it’s very hard to overcome even with evidence that says otherwise.”
She believes Obama is on the right track by offering “a new narrative that wakes people up and enables them to listen.”
“He’s talking about how we create an economy that is good for everyone,” said Waller. “It opens the door to focusing on the role of government policy in addressing issues like wage stagnation, and maintaining a wage and benefit floor for good jobs. It points to how we are all better off when everyone is contributing to our economy and civic life, and we have jobs in our local communities that are family-supporting.”
Read the whole column here.
The frenzy of commentary following last week’s presidential debate shape up to three broad takeaways, all with framing implications.
Eyes: Everyone noticed stylistic differences between the two candidates. Governor Romney seemed high energy and was looking at the camera, the President, and the moderator most of the time. President Obama spent more time looking down, something picked up by the writers for Saturday Night Live. (You knew it would happen.) These differences left many with the impression that Romney was more engaged, interested and confident than the President. We were all reminded that it’s not just the message, the messenger (and presentation style) matters too.
Weeds: Despite a few notable attempts at memorable terms (trickle down government, economy tax), many commentators noted that both of the debaters went deep into the weeds about the issues – particularly when it came to taxes and deficit reduction. Frankly, there were a lot of numbers and that got hard to follow, not to mention ~ boring. (President Clinton does it much better.) President Obama spent a lot of time focused on arguing the facts about Romney’s proposals without changing the frame. Facts vs. facts in your opponent’s frame will not change minds. Moreover, the debate focus on taxes reinforced a favorite conservative theme: cutting taxes is the best solution to budget problems. Maintaining this focus meant Obama missed a couple open invitations to shift the conversation to jobs.
Big Bird: A substantive takeaway – both serious and humorous – was Governor Romney’s threat to kill Big Bird (and to fire Jim Lehrer sitting right in front of him!) by eliminating funding for public television.
But Romney wasn’t really attacking Big Bird. He was making a point about his view on the role of government. When proponents of small government attack public funding of arts + culture, they do so understanding that they are tapping into a widely held default belief that the arts are a private matter and a low public priority. (For more on this, see our research and recommendations for advocates of broad public support of the arts.) We’re not sure why Romney chose such a popular example though. And we’re watching to see how that turns out!
Big Bird was the enduring meme of the debate (as we kinda predicted!) and launched a flurry of funny commentary. We added one of our favs above.
The Twitterverse identified all these points real-time during the debate, along with insights about social math, sticky terms, and framing decisions.
What will happen tomorrow? Join us on Twitter as we watch and learn together.