[ad_1]
Political problem framing involves presenting an issue in a way that gains approval. In contrast, mediation identifies key issues to be resolved. Language is used to gain conformity and public knowledge. Problem framing involves work, including focus groups and polls. Political parties and interest groups use this technique to reinforce ideas. The Iraq war was framed as a “war on terror” and “unjust war” or “war for oil” by opposing sides. Framing allows for political goals and public thought influence.
Placing the issue in a political context means presenting an issue in a way that is likely to win the most approval from others. In a mediation process, this process is very different and involves identifying key issues between two disagreeing parties so that issues and facts relating to issues can be discussed and resolved.
In the setting of political issues, language is often used as a way to gain conformity on controversial points. The use of language is oriented towards public knowledge, a concept first developed by the Greek sophists called kairos. Kairos essentially means knowing what is right and proper to say for a given concept and at a given moment.
In modern times, problem framing tends to involve a great deal of work. Before political speeches are written, focus groups or polls may be conducted to analyze the most effective strategies for addressing an audience. This is especially true for high-profile campaign speeches or State of the Union addresses in the United States.
The framing of problems is certainly not exclusive to any political party. All political parties use key words or phrases, sometimes called audio bytes, which they hope the media will co-opt, thus ensuring continued reinforcement of a number of ideas. Additionally, groups dedicated to key issues often use problem framing.
Problem framing can also be called shooting a story. When President Bush justified the invasion of Iraq, he initially used this technique to suggest that the purpose of the invasion was to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The words weapons of mass destruction connote fear. In light of the mass destruction at the World Trade Center, his attempt worked well. Mass destruction was to be avoided and the war on Iraq would help that. The issue was rephrased as a “War on Terror” when searches turned up no weapons.
Of course, those who don’t support the Iraq war don’t call it the “war on terror,” but they are more likely to call it an “unjust war” or a “war for oil.” Neither side plays entirely fair with the facts, as there are many explanations and arguments both for and against the war. However, framing such a controversial issue allows you to advance political goals and influence public thought.
[ad_2]