It's All In The Presentation

Whether it was addressed in our class conversations or assignments, or in the greater context of national and international news broadcasts, the topic of framing has developed negative connotations in the field and scholarly work of communications. Yet despite some obvious examples of the manipulation of framing techniques, I have tried to stay optimistic about the selection techniques of modern media outlets and producers. Though framing is used to communicate purposefully crafted, biased messages, I have always thought that there was merit to the process that has become vital to the modern communications environment. I tried to stay positive, but my efforts were met with a perpetual, seemingly endless stream of examples in which framing was used to advance the interests of a particular group, or to allow media producers to assert power, control, and influence over the ideas, beliefs, and actions of the audience. The shift in my opinion toward the dark side seemed inevitable. That was until this morning...

Today, myself and about twenty five fellows and faculty members of the Lehigh University TRAC Writing Program had the privilege of traveling to the United Nations where we met with the Communications Adviser for the Office of the Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund. With twenty one years of communications experience at the United Nations, as well as previous careers in television and radio broadcast, this particular adviser is well versed in the role of framing in the global media environment. So, as our discussion turned toward the role of communications in advancing the goals of specific organizations, the topic of conversation naturally shifted to framing. I expected to hear what I have heard so many times before... that framing is distorting truth, or creating a misinformed global audience. Instead, what I heard was not only surprising, it was practical, positive, and encouraging.

As this particular communications adviser stated, the United Nations seeks to advance the interests of members nations and the global community. Yet when addressing issues in specific communities, the United Nations, or any other organization, cannot simply declare that specific practices of the country or community are outdated, unpopular, or improper. Instead, the people of the community must be presented with information that will allow them to understand why their practices are considered dangerous or unfavorable, and must be educated in ways to implement change. In this sense, the most effective communication occurs at the community level. This is where framing comes in. In order to make community members understand the views and opinions of outsiders, external forces, international organizations, information must be framed and presented in that are diplomatic, yet informative and relatable. Once information has been framed in ways that will be received by the people in question, the community can not only obtain relevant facts and details, but additionally understand the need for change, institute necessary steps, and finally practice and promote sustainable change at their own local level. All of this is achieved through the process of framing.

In class on Tuesday we discussed and alluded to the idea that producers or framers of information were acting out of their own interests. This emphasized the negative associations of framing that I previously mentioned. Today, however, I encountered an example that proved to be quite the opposite. The United Nations is an organization that seeks to advance the interests of the global community, and improve the conditions, status, and agency of people within it's represented regions. As a media producer, the UN uses framing to help advance the interests of the less empowered members of the global community. Yes, it is arguable that the United Nations uses framing techniques to influence the ideas of another group of people, however, when examined through a less critical lens, this particular case of modern framing demonstrates the ways in which the selective methods of communication can promote positive understanding, community engagement, and effective cultural change.

Created Celebrities: Love Them, Hate Them, Listen To Their Overly Auto-Tuned YouTube Songs...

On her blog site, classmate Allison Goldberg discussed the sudden popularity of young singer Rebecca Black (read Allison's original post here). This got me thinking about our previous discussion of created celebrities, and the ways in which celebrities fit into two social narratives: those who have achieved fame, and those who have been ascribed to it. As Allison discussed, Black has been criticized since the release of her song "Friday." Though I admit that I have watched her video, and concluded that her music is not, by any stretch of the imagination, something I would choose to listen to regularly, I certainly think that there are equally terrible songs and artists out there who haven't received as much negativity as this poor girl.

Perhaps the reason for the public backlash against Rebecca Black is because the creation of her celebrity didn't fit into the achievement narrative that we traditionally associate with celebrities. Black seemingly came out of nowhere and suddenly had one of the most viewed videos on YouTube. Although her song is attention getting, she cannot be classified as having achieved celebrity through her vocal talents, as her overly Auto-Tuned voice, and lackluster lyrics exclude her from fitting this narrative.

The backlash against the young "artist" (I use this term very loosely for the sake of this post), may be because Black is an ascribed celebrity who rose from the model of capitalism and gained popularity through modern electronic communications and viral videos. With Black's image created through her family's access to wealth, media consumers may be hesitant to accept her celebrity and status. Rather than becoming traditional fans, consumers have instead created smear and hate campaigns against the singer, thereby allowing them to use Black's image for their own negative gratification purposes. In this case, some consumers have gone so far as to create new narratives to read and understand the media texts devoted to Black, which include attributing Black's video to new movements of cultural satire.

Personally, I don't think Rebecca Black is particularly talented, nor do I find her music enjoyable, but I can also completely ignore her music, as well as her created celebrity, should I choose to do so. She does not fit into my interpretation of the achievement narrative, but I certainly understand how she has been ascribed celebrity status. She has received what Andy Warhol termed her fifteen minutes of fame, and she may receive some sort of compensation for her sudden celebrity, but as her celebrity image fades, as do most "one-hit-wonders," so too will the backlash against her. Either that, or media consumers will quickly forget about her to focus on another, less talented, more ridiculous celebrity.

Infotainment: Are we responsible for selection?

Prior to our class discussion on infotainment news casts, I was already familiar with the idea that in the hyper-competitive media environment, news and information stories are increasingly presented as entertainment pieces. Rather than delivering hard-hitting, factual news stories, media outlets select specific aspects from available information to create stories that appeal to human interests. Many argue that this shift in media production and delivery is distorting the truth of stories, and creating an increasingly misinformed audience. Yet, as people continue to abandon television broadcasts, newspapers, and traditional news sources for online sites and publications, I wonder, are we responsible for the selection of the information we seek?

With limited amounts of free time, are people genuinely interested in all news stories, or do we purposely seek only those stories that have direct appeals to our interests? Do people utilize RSS feeds to select the information most relevant to their lives, or are such devises, including smart phone and e-reader applications, simply tools used to ignore the stories that we simply do not want to hear? It is arguable that in the pervasive media environment of today, people are so saturated with information that they must use their own selection efforts to identify and obtain the information that is most relevant to their lives. However, in my more critical opinion, selection can be used by individuals to simply ignore the negative events in the world and focus solely on stories that fit our own expectations, interests, and desires.

So, is infotainment a product of media producers or media consumers? Perhaps it is both. Maybe media producers must select specific images, frame certain information, and present limited and carefully arranged stories to attract viewers, who would otherwise simply ignore traditional outlets for modern media sites tailored to the specific interests of the audience. Perhaps as the audience transforms from media consumers to media producers, we have accelerated the shift toward infotainment through our own acts of purposeful selection.