How does the framing of news stories affect your stance on social conflicts?

Many years ago, in the 80's I attended a court case, and 2 reporters from different news outlets were there. The next day I read both articles, and they were written from two extremes. It was clear that racial discrimination, cultural sensitivity, socio-economics and the political leaning of the publications played a big role in the framing of the reporting by the news writers. Since then, it has made me wary and I always look at the agenda of the news outlets. And now with social media I'm able to see the values and beliefs of reporters, writers and the associations of the leaders of the organizations. This helps to determine how much is factual, biased or a mix of the two.

In my experience, framing also helps with determining whether the story is newsworthy and also helps with achieving a balanced story. Sometimes, the story is great but the messaging gets lost due to poor framing. A seasoned journalist or one with a bit of time which is rare may spot it but mostly, the story gets lost.

Media outlets giving context to any piece of information is important. The choice of words and the terminologies often used can shape the perception of the public/audience. A case in instance would be reporting on national protests. Focusing on violent protests rather than peaceful demonstrations can lead to a negative view. Therefore, providing background information without leaving out any information can help shape the narrative on the reason of conflict hence avoiding misinterpretations or superficial interpretations by the audience.

What is most evident to me is that there is a clear agenda behind news communication and it's blatantly obvious with click bait headlines as a starting point. The 'news' is no longer (was it ever?) a method of conveying factual information, but rather a way of shaping opinion. The overuse of emotive language is really tiresome and I'm surprised that anyone falls for it anymore. As Jim Morrison once said “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind”

Framing on news stories can diffuse the actual angle and may direct you in a way that is far away from the actual picture. It is well worth looking at several news angles before conclusion on a social issue or any other issue for that matter.

When reading a mainstream media article, I need to see a lot of different voices quoted that I know are authorities. Too often the people I see quoted are merely the people who happen to answer their phone. This wrecks the stories credibility.

There is no denial that media is a serious business. But they are also is a socially responsible business. The accountability to empower people with facts is no more and everyone now is agenda driven. Sometimes It's painful to see the same news with two different narratives in different channels. Remaining unbiased and not being driven by the agendas remain the biggest challenge for people.

Indeed, media has a great influence in shaping our narratives. Media and news outlets are failing to realize that because of the sheer manipulation and mind controlling, now they are losing their credibility day by day. This is why, a big majority is moving away from the mainstream media to more independent media outlets on social media platforms. Yes, I agree that these new independent outlets do not carry much credibility comparatively but those who are more focused on transparency, will eventually win the hearts!

The choice of words in reporting is crucial. Words can evoke emotions or imply judgment, such as describing a group as "freedom fighters" or "revolutionary" versus "rebel" or "Gang leader." This choice impacts how audiences perceive the legitimacy and morality of each party in a conflict. It can cause a serious bias.

I have found that in many instances, language does matter but the reader is often digesting a news piece based on the flavor they expect, desire, or for a taste of something different. As someone who relies on a myriad of sources, the language I find used is often either reaffirming my unkown/known biases or reflecting/amplifying the reasons which make me wary of the narrative put forth. I dont think " freedom fighters" vs "rioters" is a balanced litmus test, they are disingenuous options to the current example I think you delving into.It has become quite troublesome that language with specific depth of meaning are coopted into the mainstream vernacular in trivialized ways that treads deeply in hyperbole.Examples, apartheid,genocide, nazi.

Language has a great influence as history has testified also. Villain for one is a Hero for other. Terrorist for one is a liberator for other. Key words play an important role in framing. It is more of psychological tool to frame and object. It is usually done to either trigger a positive reinforcement or a negative one when the object is stimulated. Negative words bring negativity and otherwise! One needs to be careful, especially media outlets when publishing news! A careful selection of words always express their neutrality and also let people to make their own judgement.

Visuals are more engaging and last longer. Therefore, strong visuals always lead to a stronger impact. Positive imaging, reinforces positive impulses and bring positive reflexes. Whereas, expressing violence, aggression, force, mishandling, inequality, killings, genocide etc. does impact emotions and opinions and lead to depression, anxiety, hopelessness, victimization, fear, risk and in-equilibrium. Visuals are to be expressed and exposed in a more ethical and cautious way. Usually the main stream follow this with a disclaimer but independent media needs more maturity and regulation in this matter.

If a source of the information, happens to be false on more than one occasion then it loses its credibility. People start to look out for other credible sources. Earlier due to the hegemony of some big media outlets, people have less options to wonder but now with the advent of a free independent media on online social platforms, those with a more lateral thinking do make this effort and are switching in big numbers.

All stories are told from a certain perspective for or against a person, place or thing. Even informational announcements depending on the information announced can feel for or against certain audiences. If media reports more on one race over another, the viewers of that station will see more or less value in that race you report on. Always report Blacks in crime segments, always report Hispanics in immigration issues, always report Whites as serial killers, always report Asians as extremely intelligent, seem a theme here. The framing is the position we take when reporting the story. To sway for or against something or someone… “More than 80% of people polled believe…” or “Eye witnesses say” or “Although banned…” On and on.