by Sayaka Umei
The information of posters, advertisements, commercials, TVs, election promises, or even newspapers deliver a certain and limited information. These tools highlight what the providers want to say briefly to tell the most important information. However, I would like to ask “Is this just for viewer”? NO. The providers deliver and emphasize the information, thus it causes social movement, which means it makes the problem public. In my opinion, people have to choose and inquire into the information given not to act too emotionally.
“Framing is a thought organizer, highlighting certain events and facts as important ad rendering others invisible” according to Ryan and Gamson. It is “necessary but not sufficient.” It is “valuable for focusing a dialogue with targeted constituencies” because “it involves a strategic dialogue intended to shape a particular group into a coherent movement.” According to Ryan and Gamson as well, the faming has both good points and bad points.
For the strong points, there are 4 points; first the information is explicit for viewers. So they can get the information what the providers want to say. Second, people can have many frames in their heads because there are many kinds of people all over the world, which means there are many kinds of framing as well. Third, people can get the worldview of their adversaries through successful reframing. Forth, all frames implicit or explicit apply to moral principles. I think this forth one easily can cause the social movements.
For the bad points, there are 3 points; first there is too much emphasis on the message. Second, there is too narrow a focus on the message with lack of the framing strategy. Third, political conservatives did not build political power by the broader cultural values but by the infrastructure ad relationship with journalists
Based on these strong and bad points, what we have to do to the framing is that we have to pick up the information which is given to us and not to be flourished by the information. Of course, I do not say the social movement is bad, but I think that is too directly. When people are given the information and they feel something bad for them, they promote the social movement. If the provider expects people doing so like George Bush about al-Qaeda, they are in the intent of the provider.
In conclusion, nowadays there is much information around us and the technology, sociology, or even psychology has been developing. Framing has very good strategy which we cannot notice. We have to pick up the information; especially we have to pay attention to the information which is too emphasized or too effective to people’s minds.