Framing Theory: How Media Shapes Perception
Framing Theory is a key concept in media and communication studies that
explains how the way information is presented—its “frame”—influences how
audiences interpret and understand that information. Developed and popularised
by sociologist Erving Goffman in the 1970s and later extended by media scholars
such as Robert Entman, the theory explores the subtle but powerful ways media
shapes perception not just by selecting what to report, but by choosing how to
report it.
The Core of Framing
At its essence, Framing Theory suggests that media does not merely transmit
facts or events neutrally. Instead, it highlights certain aspects of a story while
downplaying or omitting others. This selection process organises reality in a
particular way, influencing how audiences think about the issue at hand.
Robert Entman (1993) defined framing as selecting “some aspects of a perceived
reality and making them more salient in a communicating text.” This involves:
Defining problems
Diagnosing causes
Making moral judgments
Suggesting remedies
For example, a news story on protests can be framed as a “fight for justice” or as
“public disorder.” The facts may be the same, but the interpretation and
emotional response of the audience will differ dramatically depending on the
frame.
Types of Media Frames
1. Conflict Frame – Focuses on disagreements and confrontations, often
used in political reporting.
2. Human Interest Frame – Adds an emotional angle by personalising the
issue.
3. Economic Consequences Frame – Emphasises the financial implications
of an event or decision.
4. Responsibility Frame – Attributes responsibility for a problem or solution
to individuals, groups, or systems.
These frames guide the audience's perception by narrowing the lens through
which they view the issue.
Why Framing Matters
Framing plays a crucial role in public opinion formation, policymaking, and
political communication. By shaping how people understand issues such as
immigration, climate change, gender equality, or health crises, the media can
influence public attitudes, voting behaviour, and social priorities. It also affects
which voices are amplified and which are marginalised in the public discourse.
For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, news outlets that framed it
primarily as a public health emergency focused on safety, science, and solidarity.
In contrast, those that framed it as a political or economic issue often highlighted
governmental overreach or economic loss, influencing how their audiences
responded to restrictions and vaccination campaigns.
Framing in the Digital Age
In the era of social media and algorithmic news feeds, framing has taken on new
dimensions. Platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook enable individuals,
influencers, and institutions to frame narratives in real time. Hashtags,
headlines, thumbnails, and even emojis act as framing devices that guide
interpretation before a user even engages with the content.
Additionally, algorithms often reinforce existing frames by curating content
based on user preferences, potentially leading to echo chambers or polarised
perspectives.
Limitations and Criticisms
Critics of Framing Theory argue that it underplays audience agency. People are
not always passively influenced; they bring their own experiences, beliefs, and
critical thinking to media consumption. Others note that identifying frames can
be subjective and vary based on the researcher's own biases.
Conclusion
Framing Theory is a powerful lens for understanding how media influences
meaning. By focusing not only on what is covered, but how it is covered, it
highlights the nuanced role of media in shaping public thought, behaviour, and
social realities. In an age of information overload, recognising frames helps
audiences become more critical and informed media consumers.
