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.