What is the difference between "framing" and "spin"?
What is the difference between "framing" and "spin"?
I hear people use the word "framing" a great deal when I think they are technically referring to "spin". My conception of the difference is that framing is a manner of explaining an issue that is consistent with a certain set of values, while spin is more of an attempt to disguise or fool people into thinking one thing is something else.
Two examples:
1) Frame - Talking about the greater good the government does through public libraries.
2) Spin - Labeling a bill designed to help the timber industry the "Healthy Forests Initiative".
This my two cents, but I'd be interested in your thoughts. I think people often think framing is spinning. So what's the frame on frames? (And, is that a meta-frame? :) )
Best
- Dave
Analysis vs Construction
Dave's question is one of the first that crossed my mind when I discovered Lakoff's writings. It seemed to me when he talked of "framing" he was drawing attention to the fact that, when used in conversation, individual words have ties to larger and more remote ideas within a frame-work of meaning. Words can therefore be "triggers" to more extensive meanings, and that increases their ability to influence thought and behavior.
I can see one of the benefits of identifying "framing" is that it helps people better understand the nature of language and communication, and may help them become more deliberate and effective communicators. It may protect them from manipulation by others.
As I see it, "framing" is mostly concerned with analysis (of a meaning matrix) and spin is concerned mostly with construction (of desired meaning through selective choice of words or ideas). Framing mostly "uncovers" meaning; spin mostly creates it. Howver, the analysis involved in defining a frame will always be subjective, based on the philosopies and value systems of the analyists. The "findings" of analysis are always viewed through the lenses and filters of value systems and available information. God has yet to carve the "Ten True Frames" in granite and give them to the most deserving Progressive. Fortunately, once he does there will be a reliable referent for judging the truth and accuracy of all other frames :)
Rockridge has made "framing" the most important and most-used idea on their website. It would seem they want to offer it to Progressives as a "tool" that may be useful in political discussion. Does the constant focus and emphasis on "framing" eventually degrade the value of the concept? Will Rockridge become known as "those people who are always talking about framing?"
I think Rockridge Institute is playing an important part in national political discussion, and hope they can continue to find ways to make their messages available and meaningful to people.
Framing vs spin
Both these articles speak about the differences. You may also want to read through the other articles in the framing section at Rockridge Institute.
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/[…]/
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/luntz
New! In my opinion
Spin is a deliberate distortion of the truth to benefit from it politically. Framing is how one interprets reality based on their world view.