This site has moved! Please check out samuelgoldman.net
Is This How You Perceive the News?
How the media shapes our perspectives on American shootings
Writing and Civic Engagement (UCSB) | 2015
Plastered across TV screens, homepages, phone screens, and newspaper front pages at the end of this past May were the face, words, and life details of Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the May 23rd Isla Vista shootings. Within hours, coverage of an event that witnessed the brutal deaths of six college students became focused and framed around him. Whether a conscious decision or not, could making him the face of such a complex, complicated incident have influenced media consumers’ perspective and subsequently informed actions concerning the Isla Vista tragedy in a meaningful way?
Framing is the process that results in this type of subliminal influence on media consumers’ perspectives. A frame is a lens or angle through which a topic can be examined that takes a fairly broad perspective of looking at the world—be it political, environmental, economic, moral, or anything in between—and applies it to the manner in which a story is covered or analyzed. Framing can be an anchor for the discussion of a broader topic; for example, grounding an op-ed on sensationalism in the news in CNN’s coverage of the Boston bombing aftermath. Framing is also often inevitable; it’s necessary when a topic is too broad to analyze in every respect, but can have this added effect of nudging readers’ perspective and outlook on an issue in a certain direction. Framing’s the hardware and operating system for an article: you can interchange the structure and language and still view the same software. Article structure—from quotation placement to photos to syntax—can be combined with buzzwords, phrases, and connotations to show you the same information you can find anywhere else but with a customized experience—a filtered way of viewing hard facts and reality.
Even news organizations as reputable as The New York Times inevitably frame serious topics in potentially harmful ways. The paper published an article in the IV shooting’s immediate aftermath titled, “Video Rant, Then Deadly Rampage in California Town” that clearly revolves around the killer. The vast majority of the paragraphs mention him, either by name or by pronoun—tying him into any point made about the event. A similar pattern is seen in the article’s use of quotations. The majority of them focus on him, while the longer, more in-depth ones do so without fail. Not only is he a thread woven throughout every chunk of the article, but is the focal point of others’ quoted assessments of the tragedy that were brought in for color.
Several photos were included to add literal color and visuals to the story, with two making textual mention of him in some way—and one of them depicting him gazing out at readers directly. Readers leave the article with his face fresh in their minds, and their more lasting images in their heads are focused on him, prompted by his being mentioned in captions. The fine details focus exclusively on him: the color of his car, the texture of his voice in his last video, the step-by-step stages of his plan, how much the candles his roommate allegedly stole from him cost. The Times article gives the audience a thorough understanding of the trivialities that made up Roger’s existence, whether they pertained to the events of May 23rd or not, rather than recounting the steps residents took in dealing with and addressing the tragedy. Readers become much more intimately familiar with him than they do the events that unfolded and the community they unfolded in. The end of the article is where the audience finally glimpses the effects of his actions beyond a simple body count as well as the broader issues and implications the shooting brought to light.
The overall result is an article framing the Isla Vista tragedy around its perpetrator. It indirectly conveys the notion to readers that exploring his depravity is the most important way to think about what happened in that community—that this episode was about him rather than the community, the shockwaves that swept through it, or the larger health and safety issues encompassing them all. Enough articles like these prompt readers to think about and interpret mass shootings through the lens of the killer.
Politico’s tackling of a different mass shooting, the Aurora, Colo. theater massacre two and a half years ago, frames its topic in a starkly different way. The title “Bloomberg: Where do Obama, Mitt stand?” evokes a sense that the two presidential candidates do not know how to respond to the tragedy. The authors’ utilization of quotations in the body of the article sets up the frame. Quotations filling in the beginning of the article from Michael Bloomberg and a gun control organization demand concrete action and clear positions on the part of the candidates, criticizing them for not responding to harsh, pressing realities related to gun violence. Readers get the impression that Obama and Romney are out of touch with these realities ordinary Americans face because they have nothing of substance to add to the discourse.
In stark contrast, the latter half of the article consists virtually entirely of quotations from various politicians, including the two candidates, expressing their condolences and sentiments that the shooting generated—all of them sounding remarkably alike in both form and substance. Their implicitly united message addressing the moral lessons and grief of the situation turns around and makes Bloomberg and the gun control group appear insensitive and unable to relate on an emotional and human level to mourners in Colorado.
Politico’s reporting through quotations—and the structural division between the two sentiments they reflect—pits two attitudes against each other that both give the impression that political leaders cannot relate to the topic. The article frames the Aurora shooting as an opportunity to reveal others’ being out of touch with a devastated subset of the population they represent and lead. It was a tragedy that, more than anything, was an example of politicians’ dearth of relatability, rather than the tragedy itself and the surrounding community and relevant issues.
Word choice, as much as structure, can frame an article around a particular perspective. References to the perpetrator, Aaron Alexis, his weapons, and the nature of his attack accomplish this in a 2013 article in USA Today covering the Washington Navy Yard shooting. While the word “weapon(s)” was used four times throughout the relatively lengthy article, specific descriptions of what types of guns they were crop up seven times. References to Alexis that didn’t use his name revolved mostly around his role as a person who wielded guns; fourteen times he is referred to as either a “shooter” or a “gunman.” The article also includes vocabulary that continually and subtly reinforces the fact that the attack was carried out with guns. Words and phrases such as “gunshot wounds,” “aiming down at people,” and “shooting” appear 30 times throughout the article. This kind of specificity and word repetition frames the article around the type of weapons used to carry out the attack—to understand the event is to understand the physical mechanisms used to commit it. It gives readers concerned about mass violence the subtle notion that these incidences are only noteworthy because of the means by which they are carried out. The weapon becomes the most significant takeaway.
Whether readers can perceive it or not, how an article is framed makes a huge difference for civically engaged people. Simply reading an article can mean a person is being civically engaged because they are intellectually engaging with issues that affect the greater society they are a part of. Their ingesting the facts, processes, and circumstances of society has the potential to spark action on their part meant to change and influence these facts, processes, and circumstances. The way an article is framed flavors these intellectual seeds that can then steer the action that grows out of them in one direction or another. One potential course of action may end up as another based on a different perspective a reader develops on an issue—a perspective cultivated by the structural and language choices that went into the article.
Framing a shooting around the perpetrator may nudge those working to combat mass violence toward incorporating more images and mentions of killers in public campaigns that mourners can’t bear to see. Framing one around politicians’ inability to relate to ordinary Americans may turn civically-engaged citizens against trying to work with officeholders since they perceive it as a hopeless endeavor. Framing one around the role guns played might spur an otherwise unconcerned person to advocate for stricter gun control legislation. The perspective an article leaves its readers with has the potential to shape not only their thinking on its topic, but how they might go about trying to influence others’ perspectives. It’s an important lesson for anyone looking to make a difference in their society based on what they read. As mundane as they might seem, the words on a page and how they’re arranged can indeed make some big waves.
Framing is the process that results in this type of subliminal influence on media consumers’ perspectives. A frame is a lens or angle through which a topic can be examined that takes a fairly broad perspective of looking at the world—be it political, environmental, economic, moral, or anything in between—and applies it to the manner in which a story is covered or analyzed. Framing can be an anchor for the discussion of a broader topic; for example, grounding an op-ed on sensationalism in the news in CNN’s coverage of the Boston bombing aftermath. Framing is also often inevitable; it’s necessary when a topic is too broad to analyze in every respect, but can have this added effect of nudging readers’ perspective and outlook on an issue in a certain direction. Framing’s the hardware and operating system for an article: you can interchange the structure and language and still view the same software. Article structure—from quotation placement to photos to syntax—can be combined with buzzwords, phrases, and connotations to show you the same information you can find anywhere else but with a customized experience—a filtered way of viewing hard facts and reality.
Even news organizations as reputable as The New York Times inevitably frame serious topics in potentially harmful ways. The paper published an article in the IV shooting’s immediate aftermath titled, “Video Rant, Then Deadly Rampage in California Town” that clearly revolves around the killer. The vast majority of the paragraphs mention him, either by name or by pronoun—tying him into any point made about the event. A similar pattern is seen in the article’s use of quotations. The majority of them focus on him, while the longer, more in-depth ones do so without fail. Not only is he a thread woven throughout every chunk of the article, but is the focal point of others’ quoted assessments of the tragedy that were brought in for color.
Several photos were included to add literal color and visuals to the story, with two making textual mention of him in some way—and one of them depicting him gazing out at readers directly. Readers leave the article with his face fresh in their minds, and their more lasting images in their heads are focused on him, prompted by his being mentioned in captions. The fine details focus exclusively on him: the color of his car, the texture of his voice in his last video, the step-by-step stages of his plan, how much the candles his roommate allegedly stole from him cost. The Times article gives the audience a thorough understanding of the trivialities that made up Roger’s existence, whether they pertained to the events of May 23rd or not, rather than recounting the steps residents took in dealing with and addressing the tragedy. Readers become much more intimately familiar with him than they do the events that unfolded and the community they unfolded in. The end of the article is where the audience finally glimpses the effects of his actions beyond a simple body count as well as the broader issues and implications the shooting brought to light.
The overall result is an article framing the Isla Vista tragedy around its perpetrator. It indirectly conveys the notion to readers that exploring his depravity is the most important way to think about what happened in that community—that this episode was about him rather than the community, the shockwaves that swept through it, or the larger health and safety issues encompassing them all. Enough articles like these prompt readers to think about and interpret mass shootings through the lens of the killer.
Politico’s tackling of a different mass shooting, the Aurora, Colo. theater massacre two and a half years ago, frames its topic in a starkly different way. The title “Bloomberg: Where do Obama, Mitt stand?” evokes a sense that the two presidential candidates do not know how to respond to the tragedy. The authors’ utilization of quotations in the body of the article sets up the frame. Quotations filling in the beginning of the article from Michael Bloomberg and a gun control organization demand concrete action and clear positions on the part of the candidates, criticizing them for not responding to harsh, pressing realities related to gun violence. Readers get the impression that Obama and Romney are out of touch with these realities ordinary Americans face because they have nothing of substance to add to the discourse.
In stark contrast, the latter half of the article consists virtually entirely of quotations from various politicians, including the two candidates, expressing their condolences and sentiments that the shooting generated—all of them sounding remarkably alike in both form and substance. Their implicitly united message addressing the moral lessons and grief of the situation turns around and makes Bloomberg and the gun control group appear insensitive and unable to relate on an emotional and human level to mourners in Colorado.
Politico’s reporting through quotations—and the structural division between the two sentiments they reflect—pits two attitudes against each other that both give the impression that political leaders cannot relate to the topic. The article frames the Aurora shooting as an opportunity to reveal others’ being out of touch with a devastated subset of the population they represent and lead. It was a tragedy that, more than anything, was an example of politicians’ dearth of relatability, rather than the tragedy itself and the surrounding community and relevant issues.
Word choice, as much as structure, can frame an article around a particular perspective. References to the perpetrator, Aaron Alexis, his weapons, and the nature of his attack accomplish this in a 2013 article in USA Today covering the Washington Navy Yard shooting. While the word “weapon(s)” was used four times throughout the relatively lengthy article, specific descriptions of what types of guns they were crop up seven times. References to Alexis that didn’t use his name revolved mostly around his role as a person who wielded guns; fourteen times he is referred to as either a “shooter” or a “gunman.” The article also includes vocabulary that continually and subtly reinforces the fact that the attack was carried out with guns. Words and phrases such as “gunshot wounds,” “aiming down at people,” and “shooting” appear 30 times throughout the article. This kind of specificity and word repetition frames the article around the type of weapons used to carry out the attack—to understand the event is to understand the physical mechanisms used to commit it. It gives readers concerned about mass violence the subtle notion that these incidences are only noteworthy because of the means by which they are carried out. The weapon becomes the most significant takeaway.
Whether readers can perceive it or not, how an article is framed makes a huge difference for civically engaged people. Simply reading an article can mean a person is being civically engaged because they are intellectually engaging with issues that affect the greater society they are a part of. Their ingesting the facts, processes, and circumstances of society has the potential to spark action on their part meant to change and influence these facts, processes, and circumstances. The way an article is framed flavors these intellectual seeds that can then steer the action that grows out of them in one direction or another. One potential course of action may end up as another based on a different perspective a reader develops on an issue—a perspective cultivated by the structural and language choices that went into the article.
Framing a shooting around the perpetrator may nudge those working to combat mass violence toward incorporating more images and mentions of killers in public campaigns that mourners can’t bear to see. Framing one around politicians’ inability to relate to ordinary Americans may turn civically-engaged citizens against trying to work with officeholders since they perceive it as a hopeless endeavor. Framing one around the role guns played might spur an otherwise unconcerned person to advocate for stricter gun control legislation. The perspective an article leaves its readers with has the potential to shape not only their thinking on its topic, but how they might go about trying to influence others’ perspectives. It’s an important lesson for anyone looking to make a difference in their society based on what they read. As mundane as they might seem, the words on a page and how they’re arranged can indeed make some big waves.
The Subtle Power of Journalism
What do these writers do beyond merely informing the public?
Writing and Civic Engagement | 2015
Last December, Rolling Stone’s “A Rape on Campus” — a bombshell feature story about a supposed gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity — became the most publically discredited piece of journalism of the year. A story that held the potential to change our country’s broader discussions on college sexual assault and galvanize readers into taking a stand against this complex problem quickly became an obstacle to progress; it generated the perception that the magazine and the author were attempting to play up or even fabricate a problem. Rolling Stone’s shoddy investigation and fact-checking negatively colored its audience’s perceptions of college sexual assault and potentially diminished its readers’ taking action. The story calls into question two fundamental questions crucial to journalism: What are the roles writing plays for civically engaged writers and readers, and what constitutes civic engagement for both the creators and consumers of an article?
Civic engagement — this nebulous, fancy-sounding concept — can be both intellectual as well as active. It is simply engagement with the people, processes, events, and ideas that affect and shape the greater society around one. Intellectually, it can involve learning more about these phenomena, expanding one’s perspective or knowledge on an issue, or becoming motivated to take action. Actively, it can be sparking intellectual engagement in others or, more broadly, directly participating in efforts meant to foster change (without necessarily being successful). Civic engagement’s targets are anyone who can be more civically engaged or have the potential to effect change. Success means either finding oneself in a different place with the world intellectually or putting forth effort in making a difference with the people, processes, events, and ideas that shape society.
Richard Ross, a professor and activist at UC Santa Barbara, achieves this relationship with society with his photographs and writings about juvenile incarceration — a phenomenon that greatly impacts a subset of society and stems from our broader ideas of punishment and behavior. In the afterword to his Juvenile in Justice, Ross explains that “I learned how to speak to children in detention and confinement. I learned how to neutralize the authority of my age, height, and race by sitting on the floor and allowing the children to have control over the conversation.” His becoming more aware of his status over his subjects through his efforts to document youth incarceration allow him to better engage with this phenomenon.
Poignant first-hand accounts of incarcerated girls’ horrific life experiences frame his preface to the book; passages such as “They gave me drugs when I was ten…when they wanted to have sexual contact with me and not fight back” bring awareness of these significant issues to readers, sparking intellectual civic engagement. The power of his words contain the ability to motivate active engagement in his audience. The use of his photos in testimony to Congress on this problem were intended to effect change, targeting and influencing those in government with the most structural power to enact any sort of change.
For civically engaged writers, the role of their work is this spark for intellectual or active civic engagement in their readers. The goal is to leave readers in a new intellectual relationship with the people, processes, events, and ideas that shape society or to motivate them into taking physical action meant to have an effect on these phenomena. For readers not already civically engaged, writers’ and journalists’ work is the spark that gets them involved mentally with the world; for those who already are, writing is a direction-setter or extra catalyst for their civic engagement.
In a recent feature article on her role as a civically engaged writer, journalism graduate student Anjali Shastry discussed the roles her writing plays with the University of Maryland’s Capital News Service and American Journalism Review and how she sees her writing as a window to the world. She connects readers in one part of the country to issues and concerns facing another part of the country with an article highlighting differing opinions on the media’s approach to covering the May 2014 Isla Vista tragedy. Her own words in the story serve as a skeleton and guide for the direct quotations from a local reporter and a student. These quotations relay a community’s differing perspectives on the media’s role in tragedies and allow readers the opportunity to connect directly to those involved in important issues that might not otherwise affect them. Shastry’s assembling and framing her two subjects’ opinions gives her the opportunity to facilitate others’ connection to a broader community and its issues.
Her writing plays the role of a window between readers and real-world issues they wouldn’t otherwise be connected with while also serving as the platform and groundwork for others to comment, develop, and debate their own burgeoning ideas — to cultivate their intellectual civic engagement. She asserts that her writing’s not just about being this window to the greater world, but a place for readers to leave their thoughts and discuss the topic with others, herself included. “You want the article to lay the groundwork for the information that they have, and you want them to be engaged—you want them to have discussions about it,” she said in the feature story. “I want there to be [on the part of readers] some sort of ‘Well, I think this because of this’. And I want people to be able to see other sides of the story that I can’t necessarily put in it.” Her articles provide a space for readers’ expanding intellectual civic engagement and mental relationship with the broader issues around them.
Mark Strong, a writer and teacher attending UC Davis, describes the roles his writing plays in a feature article by Michael Berton. An op-ed from his time at UCSB’s Daily Nexus newspaper tackles the seemingly hopeless political atmosphere in Washington and motivates readers to want to take action. Stating that special interests are “hijacking” our representatives’ votes and asserting that politicians’ unwavering commitment above all else to irrational ideology is a “suicidal” trend not only serves as a wake-up call for readers regarding what their government is doing, but is meant to incite a shared passion that is necessary to all forms of active civic engagement.
According to Berton, Strong’s work is “passionate” and “always has a call to action plan.” This blend of passion and concrete action are the ideal ingredients for planting this seed of civic engagement in readers; it gives his audience not only the emotion that underlies action and the desire to make a change, but gives them the blueprints to structure their newly inspired efforts. The informative and empowering nature of Strong’s writing allows readers the opportunity to find themselves in a different intellectual place with the issues he covers and gives them a direction and course of action.
The work and responsibilities or writers — and journalists in particular — embody both sides of writing’s civic engagement potential: It is active in its creation and intellectual in its consumption. Journalists further their own civic engagement as they simultaneously facilitate others’. This is perhaps best illustrated by Shastry, whose tracking down of politicians in Annapolis to learn about the subject of her articles is her own form of intellectual engagement, which facilitates the composition of her articles — an active form of engagement. On the other side of her articles are her readers, who become intellectually engaged (and thus potentially actively engaged). Intellectual engagement enables active engagement, which then enables others’ intellectual, and then their active, and so on down the line of public influence.
But writers’ and journalists’ work remains a vital, early-on link in facilitating the rest of this chain of civic engagement. The general populace’s ability to maintain an informed intellectual understanding of its society and participate in constructive change often hinges on journalists’ ability to inform, persuade, inspire, and be civically engaged themselves. For journalists, being cognizant of the roles and social impact they and their work have is imperative to informing and broadening ordinary citizens’ knowledge and perspectives as well as their capacity to actively engage with the people, processes, events, and ideas that affect and shape society. Had the author and fact-checker behind “A Rape on Campus” appreciated the social impact a discredited article on rape would have, the country might have witnessed a more constructive and positive wave of intellectual and active civic engagement.
Civic engagement — this nebulous, fancy-sounding concept — can be both intellectual as well as active. It is simply engagement with the people, processes, events, and ideas that affect and shape the greater society around one. Intellectually, it can involve learning more about these phenomena, expanding one’s perspective or knowledge on an issue, or becoming motivated to take action. Actively, it can be sparking intellectual engagement in others or, more broadly, directly participating in efforts meant to foster change (without necessarily being successful). Civic engagement’s targets are anyone who can be more civically engaged or have the potential to effect change. Success means either finding oneself in a different place with the world intellectually or putting forth effort in making a difference with the people, processes, events, and ideas that shape society.
Richard Ross, a professor and activist at UC Santa Barbara, achieves this relationship with society with his photographs and writings about juvenile incarceration — a phenomenon that greatly impacts a subset of society and stems from our broader ideas of punishment and behavior. In the afterword to his Juvenile in Justice, Ross explains that “I learned how to speak to children in detention and confinement. I learned how to neutralize the authority of my age, height, and race by sitting on the floor and allowing the children to have control over the conversation.” His becoming more aware of his status over his subjects through his efforts to document youth incarceration allow him to better engage with this phenomenon.
Poignant first-hand accounts of incarcerated girls’ horrific life experiences frame his preface to the book; passages such as “They gave me drugs when I was ten…when they wanted to have sexual contact with me and not fight back” bring awareness of these significant issues to readers, sparking intellectual civic engagement. The power of his words contain the ability to motivate active engagement in his audience. The use of his photos in testimony to Congress on this problem were intended to effect change, targeting and influencing those in government with the most structural power to enact any sort of change.
For civically engaged writers, the role of their work is this spark for intellectual or active civic engagement in their readers. The goal is to leave readers in a new intellectual relationship with the people, processes, events, and ideas that shape society or to motivate them into taking physical action meant to have an effect on these phenomena. For readers not already civically engaged, writers’ and journalists’ work is the spark that gets them involved mentally with the world; for those who already are, writing is a direction-setter or extra catalyst for their civic engagement.
In a recent feature article on her role as a civically engaged writer, journalism graduate student Anjali Shastry discussed the roles her writing plays with the University of Maryland’s Capital News Service and American Journalism Review and how she sees her writing as a window to the world. She connects readers in one part of the country to issues and concerns facing another part of the country with an article highlighting differing opinions on the media’s approach to covering the May 2014 Isla Vista tragedy. Her own words in the story serve as a skeleton and guide for the direct quotations from a local reporter and a student. These quotations relay a community’s differing perspectives on the media’s role in tragedies and allow readers the opportunity to connect directly to those involved in important issues that might not otherwise affect them. Shastry’s assembling and framing her two subjects’ opinions gives her the opportunity to facilitate others’ connection to a broader community and its issues.
Her writing plays the role of a window between readers and real-world issues they wouldn’t otherwise be connected with while also serving as the platform and groundwork for others to comment, develop, and debate their own burgeoning ideas — to cultivate their intellectual civic engagement. She asserts that her writing’s not just about being this window to the greater world, but a place for readers to leave their thoughts and discuss the topic with others, herself included. “You want the article to lay the groundwork for the information that they have, and you want them to be engaged—you want them to have discussions about it,” she said in the feature story. “I want there to be [on the part of readers] some sort of ‘Well, I think this because of this’. And I want people to be able to see other sides of the story that I can’t necessarily put in it.” Her articles provide a space for readers’ expanding intellectual civic engagement and mental relationship with the broader issues around them.
Mark Strong, a writer and teacher attending UC Davis, describes the roles his writing plays in a feature article by Michael Berton. An op-ed from his time at UCSB’s Daily Nexus newspaper tackles the seemingly hopeless political atmosphere in Washington and motivates readers to want to take action. Stating that special interests are “hijacking” our representatives’ votes and asserting that politicians’ unwavering commitment above all else to irrational ideology is a “suicidal” trend not only serves as a wake-up call for readers regarding what their government is doing, but is meant to incite a shared passion that is necessary to all forms of active civic engagement.
According to Berton, Strong’s work is “passionate” and “always has a call to action plan.” This blend of passion and concrete action are the ideal ingredients for planting this seed of civic engagement in readers; it gives his audience not only the emotion that underlies action and the desire to make a change, but gives them the blueprints to structure their newly inspired efforts. The informative and empowering nature of Strong’s writing allows readers the opportunity to find themselves in a different intellectual place with the issues he covers and gives them a direction and course of action.
The work and responsibilities or writers — and journalists in particular — embody both sides of writing’s civic engagement potential: It is active in its creation and intellectual in its consumption. Journalists further their own civic engagement as they simultaneously facilitate others’. This is perhaps best illustrated by Shastry, whose tracking down of politicians in Annapolis to learn about the subject of her articles is her own form of intellectual engagement, which facilitates the composition of her articles — an active form of engagement. On the other side of her articles are her readers, who become intellectually engaged (and thus potentially actively engaged). Intellectual engagement enables active engagement, which then enables others’ intellectual, and then their active, and so on down the line of public influence.
But writers’ and journalists’ work remains a vital, early-on link in facilitating the rest of this chain of civic engagement. The general populace’s ability to maintain an informed intellectual understanding of its society and participate in constructive change often hinges on journalists’ ability to inform, persuade, inspire, and be civically engaged themselves. For journalists, being cognizant of the roles and social impact they and their work have is imperative to informing and broadening ordinary citizens’ knowledge and perspectives as well as their capacity to actively engage with the people, processes, events, and ideas that affect and shape society. Had the author and fact-checker behind “A Rape on Campus” appreciated the social impact a discredited article on rape would have, the country might have witnessed a more constructive and positive wave of intellectual and active civic engagement.