To Frame or Not to Frame

In public relations we know that a part of our job is to inform the public on behalf of our organization or client, which often requires us to change the public's opinion. Many PR practitioners find it difficult when trying to persuade the public to believe what they want them to believe. This is not uncommon. In fact, practitioners are equipped with intangible tools to assist them in their job, such as framing.

To frame is to select some aspects of perceived reality and make them more salient in the communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation for the item described, according to Robert Entman.

For example, Michael Jackson's death came unexpectedly to his fans and family members. When the media learned the cause of Jackson's death, they immediately began to inform the public, stating that Jackson was a drug abuser. His crisis management team quickly began to frame Jackson as being overworked, stressed and often fatigued. These were reasons for Jackson's drug use. Celebrities began to speak out in Jackson's favor, as did his family members.

The media are not the only ones who use framing to shape the public's opinion. Authors do too. In James Hoggan's book, "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming," he uses a lot of names and big companies in order to persuade his readers that global warming is taking place and that major oil companies, along with others, are forming Astroturf organizations to sway the public's opinion on global warming.

When a PR person masters the skill of framing, he or she becomes superior to their colleagues. Framing is a tool that PR professionals adore; however, I can’t help but wonder what the difference is between framing and spinning.