Media Activism #5

This week Thaler Pekar came to our class to speak further about framing the debate. She spoke about the importance of using positive language to frame messages in order not to stimulate negative imagery. Hot button terms instantly conjure up a slew of feelings, memories, stereotypes, and ideas, therefore talking about what you are not going to do, and what you don'’t stand for, will still put your audience in that negative mindset and you will be working within the framework of your counterpart.

This reminds me of conversation I had with my father when I was a teenager. There was a plane crash and it was all over the news. I wondered if competing airlines use that opportunity to promote themselves and speak about their safety procedures and statistics and my father pointed out that other airlines stay quiet when this happens. Plane crashes hurt the entire industry, not just the particular airline. In the midst of all of the devastation and tragedy, any mention or imagery of an airplane will conjure up fear and negative response, no matter what. I don’t know if this is an actual communications strategy within the airline industry, but it made sense to me then, and it applies the logic described by Ms. Pekar.

Ms. Pekar also talked about communicating an idea based on an order of three levels: Values, Issues, and Policies. In order to frame the debate, you should introduce your message as it relates to values, like democracy, equality, opportunity, or education, to get people in the mindset where they are agreeing with you on a higher ground. Once we all agree, you can move from there to the issues, like women's rights, the environment, gay rights, etc. Once you have identified the issue, you can then begin to describe the policy you are supporting or promoting.


Ms. Pekar used a file-cabinet analogy to describe how each person has many files in their head containing positions, ideas, and opinions. In order to elicit a favorable response, you have to facilitate the listener in opening the appropriate drawer, locating the relevant file jacket and using the file folder you want them to use to make their decisions. If you start at the policy level, the listener could end up extracting from the wrong drawer, using the wrong file folder, and never seeing eye-to-eye with you. This explains why, for example, someone like a white supremacist who disagrees with your values of equality will not be able to even open that drawer in his or her head, and there would be no way to discuss policies, such as affirmative action or racial profiling.

The analogy also appropriately represents one’s position on a topic as a complex process of the consideration of a person’s overall values and the narrowing in of their individual opinions on each issue.

Not surprisingly, Thaler Paker was an excellent speaker and communicator. I am very interested in the work that she does. This lecture, as well as this Media Activism class in general, has really motivated me to learn more about the field of media consulting for progressive causes.

Media Activism #4

Loren Siegel’s “How to Work with Public Opinion Research” is a very useful guide. Siegel provides practical information for conducting research for a communications plan including key points to remember when conducting a survey or focus group, important characteristics to look for in a consultant, checklists for funders, and contact information for research firms, consulting firms, and other resources on the web.

The article provides case studies to give examples of strategies and key things to keep in mind when conducting a communications plan. A quote from this guide was very similar to George Lakoff’s argument that emotions outweigh the facts in people’s minds. Siegel writes, “Message development on a given issue, be it the death penalty, welfare reform, or the treatment of immigrants, will require more than marshalling facts, no matter how compelling they may be.” Like Lakoff, she also talks about reframing the debate.

Siegel emphasizes the importance of measuring ‘salience’ when conducting research. She writes, “Broad but passive support will not translate into action”. Using the case of decriminalizing marijuana use, she demonstrates that although there is only a slight difference between people who support and oppose decriminalization (41% to 51%), the people who oppose were much more adamant about their stance and therefore more willing to act on their position. This is a good lesson for polling and framing your questions for surveys to test salience.

The other interesting thing Siegle brought up in the article was to keep in mind whether or not your poll findings will be publicized. She says, “A competent reporter will want to know everything about the survey in order to make a judgment about whether or not it’s scientifically valid.” This is a very good point, however, in light of our discussions in class where we spoke about investigative reporting going down the tubes, I am sure that companies are not disclosing their full findings and reporters are not investigating. This contributes to statistics and polls being taken out of context in the news media and further resulting in the public's mistrust and constant skeptisism of seemingly factual information. Ideally, it is good practice to keep this in mind, allow your research methods to be transparent, and even encourage the reporters to see all of the information to emphasize the solid results of your study.

Media Activism #3

Reading George Lakoff's, Don't Think of an Elephant, was very exciting and inspiring. It answered questions that I have had in my head for a long time. I remember after seeing the documentary The Education of Shelby Knox and thinking, how did this high school girl from one of the most conservative towns in America with two republican parents turn out to be such a liberal? I viewed it as a testament to the liberal spirit that is present in some people despite their environment; a clear case of nature over nurture. Lakoff's description of the strict-father model made me look back at Shelby Knox and evaluate what her parents were really like. That's when I realized that even though Shelby's parents were Republicans, they were very much a dual parenting, nurturing mom and dad who truly respected their daughter's individuality and strong convictions. They nurtured her progressive and liberal values, even if they didn’t know it!


I also used a good friend of mine as a case study while reading the book. One of the only real Republican close friends I have in the city is one of the least likely. He is a struggling actor with no money who lives a very creative life surrounded by books, comics, music, and a big marijuana smoke cloud. I've always wondered why he is so conservative! I also knew that his father was a military man and worked for the government. I've never actually met his parents, but now I realize that he MUST have grown up in a strict-father modeled household. The idea of the world being dangerous, people being generally bad, the successful being deserving and the poor being lazy are definitely values I have heard him express. It all made so much sense!!

The one thing that Lakoff’s book doesn’t discuss is how someone who grew up with a strict-father family structure can get past that and see eye-to-eye with a progressive thinker. Basing everything on how we grew up during childhood does not leave me with a lot of hope.

We do have to work on framing the debate and not falling into the traps of using conservative language, which reinforces their ideas. I have always seen the value in choosing language carefully and this book, along with many other books I have read in the Media Studies program, have supported this idea.

After a conversation I had with my conservative friend about “supporting the troops” it became very clear to me that he didn’t support them at all. His viewpoint was that they signed the papers and if they didn’t think they’d ever get called to war, they were wrong. Tough luck, that’s what you get for signing your soul for college tuition. I couldn’t believe it. I told him that wasn’t very respectful of the troops and he shrugged his shoulders. So, I think that Liberals should claim the phrase “RESPECT THE TROOPS” and that means: be careful with their lives, protect them from unnecessary harm, supply them with the proper equipment, extend their benefits, and care for their families. Most of all, appreciate them for putting their lives in danger and volunteering to do a job so that others are not forced to. I show my support of the troops by respecting them.

Media Activism #2

I picked up a Ms. Magazine yesterday at Whole Foods and read an essay entitled “Jane Doe's Choice” by Lynda Zielinski. It was related to the issues from my previous posting, because again, this topic has been very much on my mind. Over the holidays I got in a heated debate with an older conservative man on the issue of parental consent for teenagers choosing abortion. His viewpoint was basically that the womb of a minor belongs to her parents. This man was a lawyer and he found ways to explain how this was completely constitutional and moral. He refused to accept the fact that young women will seek abortions no matter what, and if they can’t tell their parents, they will put their lives in danger.

The article by Zielinski was about her personal experience assisting women seeking permission from a judge to bypass the consent laws in over 30 states to obtain an abortion without notifying their parents. Judges decide if the minor is mature enough to make this decision – which already seems ironic, based on the fact that denying her permission could very well result in the immature minor becoming a mother. Zielinski explains how complicated the procedure is, observing that any woman who goes through all the steps necessary to stand before a judge has already shown a great amount of maturity. This is also disturbing to know that women who are unable to obtain consent from their parents and who lack the resourcefulness to figure out the judicial system of the bypass laws are more likely to have the unwanted baby. This means that the women who have no support from their parents and no guidance from informed adults will be the ones carrying a baby for nine months and figuring out their doctor’s appointments, nutritional needs and labor choices. How does this legislation make sense?