The cognitive biology of politics: Framing effects in news reporting

How rhetoric and other kinds of information is framed affects how people perceive and think about it. Framing can serve informational and/or deceptive purposes depending on its design and implementation. Scholarship distinguishes between legitimate framing practices that support democratic discourse and manipulative framing that undermines honestly informed decision-making.[1] 

One of the critical failures of mainstream media politics reporting is its failure or refusal to use pro-democracy framing in news reporting and commentary. In short, the MSM keeps framing MAGA/Trump news in terms of wins and losses for MAGA/Trump. That is a pro-authoritarian way to report news. 

Why? Because when MAGA/Trump win in court or get something they want related to democracy, the rule of law, or civil liberties, that win almost always comes at the expense of whichever of democracy, the rule of law, and civil liberties is impacted. But if the MSM chose to report news in terms of whether democracy, the rule of law, and/or civil liberties wins or loses, the public would be better informed of what is really going on. 

An example: The MSM reports that the USSC used the shadow docket without explanation to let Trump pull some illegal crap that violates a civil liberty. The court's action is framed as a win for Trump. Deceptive, irresponsible reporting like that is the norm.[1] Instead of the usual crappy, pro-Trump reporting like that, the MSM could frame the same thing as (1) the USSC decision was a loss for the rule of law, and (2) what it allowed Trump to do was a loss for civil liberties. See the difference? Win for MAGA/Trump vs loss for rule of law and civil liberties.

And that is a major part of why it is rational, fair and balanced to give the MSM a grade of F- for reporting MAGA/Trump news in the usual way.

Q: Is it rational, fair and balanced to give the MSM a grade of F- for reporting MAGA/Trump news in the usual way?

Footnote:

1. Framing can be good or bad. It can be pro-authoritarian and disinforming. In my opinion, that is a form of bad. Scholars see pro-democracy framing as informative and "legitimate". Another way to see it, e.g., my way, is that pro-democracy framing is moral, but pro-authoritarian framing is immoral, or evil if people get unjustifiably hurt or killed.

Data from a 2024 research paper, Safeguarding the Peaceful Transfer of Power: Pro-Democracy Electoral Frames and Journalist Coverage of Election Deniers During the 2022 U.S. Midterm Elections, asserted that journalists routinely failed to alert the public to the threat posed by candidates unwilling to embrace the legitimacy of U.S. elections. If one looks at MSM reporting about MAGA/Trump politics, it is clear that journalists are routinely failing to alert the public to MAGA/Trump threats by using pro-authoritarian framing in reporting and commentary.

Other recent research indicates that the most recent frame a person encounters has the strongest impact. The data indicates that familiarity with a frame plays a significant moderating role. Familiar issues like climate change elicit different response patterns compared to less familiar topics. To some extent that translates into behavior.

FWIW, some DP posts on framing:

https://dispol.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-morality-of-framing-issues-in.html

https://dispol.blogspot.com/2021/01/framing-issues-in-politics.html

https://dispol.blogspot.com/2019/08/media-reporting-and-cognitive-biology.html