Meta messaging framing your case and reinforcing your allies
Saturday, January 01, 2005In October 2003, The Praxis Project was honored to host a rather informal conversation of some of the smartest, most visionary communications strategists of our time -- Charles Fulwood of MediaVision USA, Gwen McKinney of McKinney Public Relations, George Lakoff and Lawrence Wallack of the Rockridge Institute, and Berkeley Media Studies Group's Lori Dorfman. The purpose of the discussion was to think together about the current "framing terrain" and what progressive advocates could do to make headway. Now, after a tumultuous and divisive election, many of us have focused like a laser on what was said and not said and who did a better job of articulating what, as if words alone shaped the outcome. This memo makes clear that words alone cannot shape any political outcome. Organizing. Infrastructure. Strategy. These form the foundation from which power is built. Messaging helps us clarify and communicate so that we can help expand our base and affect the public conversation. This memo was inspired by that conversation in important ways, as well as by much that has happened in the intervening months. The gathering did not produce a consensus and this document is not a summary of what was said. It only draws from the conversation in places. This memo focuses on an idea that Praxis has been playing with over the last few years with a number of partners across the country. We are grateful to Lark Corbeil of Public News Service, Youth Media Council and Berkeley Media Studies Group and others in the august gathering mentioned above for helping to move our thinking on this issue. This work is made possible through the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. To these folk and the many others we have learned from via Praxis' Learning Circles and discussions along the way, go our heartfelt thanks and credit for what works and none of the blame. The mistakes and shortcomings that may appear within these pages are Praxis' alone. The Berkeley Media Studies Group did the yeoman's work in drafting this guide. Our special thanks to Lori Dorfman for her hard work in making this memo a reality.Meta messaging: Framing what you say to make your case and reinforce your allies
A message memo from the Berkeley Media Studies Group and the Praxis Project The battleground for social justice is vast: living wage in Miami, affordable housing in Portland, smoke free restaurants in New York, health care for the uninsured in Denver, fighting hunger in Los Angeles, safe streets in Oakland, gay marriage in Boston. Each issue is different, but each, in a fundamental way, is the same. Does that mean we can all say the same thing? This message memo explains how these issues are different and the same, and how, as advocates, we can make the most of it in our messages. Everyone can't fight every battle at once. Yet we believe advocates working on issues as different as gay marriage and affordable housing can construct messages that serve their own immediate strategic needs and, at the same time, echo one another's larger goals for social change. This memo tells you why we think that's possible and how to do it.I. First and foremost: Message is never first or foremost
The words we use to make our case are important, yet, they are never the first consideration. Persuasive overarching messages can only emerge from comprehensive planning in which program, policy, public opinion, and media objectives are integrated into consistent messages aimed at well-defined audiences. You start with where you really want to go, and plot the ride along the way. Our words, therefore, are always dependent on the actual change we want to see in the world, and how we think that change will occur. It's why we say you can never have a media strategy without an overall strategy. It's a simple premise, yet, often overlooked — sometimes because advocates haven't yet figured out what they want or determined the best strategy and tactics to achieve their goal. Figure that out first, message will follow. Always. Once you know what you want and have a strategy for getting it, then come framing the message. Afterwards, of course, that message has to be delivered — to specific audiences, by selected messengers. But even the most carefully chosen and expertly delivered message will never be the only thing the audience considers. Messages are delivered in a context — some call it the "message environment." Often it is a news context, since advocates frequently target policy makers who rely on the news to tell them what's important. Other contexts will also influence how messages are understood by various audiences, like political or cultural contexts. Messages, therefore, are not static. They have to be developed from strategy (which changes), delivered by messengers (who change) to a target audience (which might also change) in a specific context (also in flux). The question is: how do we construct a persuasive message across a variety of issues amidst all this motion? The answer: by framing them effectively. Conservatives have been very effective in framing issues on their terms, but their consistent messages did not emerge simply from sound bites — their messages are products of long-range strategic thinking about goals and the vehicles for reaching those goals. By using similar principles of framing and message development we can also deliver consistent messages across issues.II. Framing: How does it work, why does it matter?
"Framing" means many different things to people. Some think of framing as finding the right word, others believe frames reflect deeper sets of values, and still others believe that frames tap complex moral structures that trigger how people react to a whole constellation of social and public policy issues. Framing is complex and abstract. To simplify, we describe two types of frames, conceptual frames and news frames. Conceptual frames are important because they express the values you hold and the change you seek. News frames are important because ultimately most conceptual frames have to be heard in a news context, and news shapes frames in its own particular fashion. Both types of frames lead to predictable interpretations in audiences. If you understand how the frames work you'll have an easier time influencing those interpretations.A. Conceptual frames structure thinking & interpretation
Scholars like cognitive linguist George Lakoff and cultural studies guru Stuart Hall teach us that frames are the conceptual bedrock for understanding anything. People are only able to interpret words, images, actions, or text of any kind because their brains fit those texts into a conceptual system that gives them order and meaning. Just a few cues — a word, an image — trigger whole frames that determine meaning. That's why the choice of words becomes important. Here's how a small cue can trigger a whole frame, evoking specific presuppositions and logical outcomes. In California, the Chamber of Commerce regularly issues a list of "job killer" legislation it tries to defeat. The term is simple and evocative. "Killer" implies that someone is coming after you — the situation is threatening, even dire. Killers must be stopped. Their targets need immediate protection and defensive maneuvers. The frame evokes these ideas before we have even an inkling of what the specific legislation might be about. In fact, if the Chamber is successful with its "job killer" frame, it won't ever have to debate the merits of the bill. If the public discussion stays focused on whether the bill "kills" jobs, then the Chamber has won the terms of debate. The messages we develop will be based on a conceptual frame that reflects our values and uses metaphors, images, or other devices to communicate those values. Most of the time, those values will be about fairness, justice, equity, responsibility, opportunity, democracy, or any of the other "big reasons" that motivate us to make change against terrific odds.B. News frames are portraits and landscapes
A second type of frame important to us is the news frame, simply because so much of our public conversation about policy and social change is mediated through the news. News frames evolved from a storytelling structure that emphasizes people and events. Most reporters try to "put a face on the issue" to illustrate the impact on a person's life, rather than describe the policy implications, in part because they believe that readers and viewers are more likely to identify emotionally with a person's plight than with a tedious dissection of policy options. They might be right. Stories about people are certainly easier to tell than stories about ideas. The problem is that stories that focus on people or isolated episodes do not help audiences understand how to solve social problems beyond demanding that individuals take more responsibility for themselves. A simple way to distinguish news story frames is to think of the difference between a portrait and a landscape. In a news story framed as a portrait, audiences may learn a great deal about an individual or an event, heavy on the drama and emotion. But, it is hard to see what surrounds individuals or what brought them to that moment in time. A landscape story pulls back the lens to take a broader view. It may include people and events, but connects them to the larger social and economic forces. News stories framed as landscapes are more likely to evoke solutions that don't focus exclusively on individuals, but also the policies and institutions that shape the circumstances around them.Landscapes reinforce institutional accountability
A key value that is affected by portrait and landscape frames is responsibility. News stories focused on people or events evoke feelings of personal responsibility in audiences. Landscape stories evoke shared responsibility between individuals and institutions. The challenge for advocates is to make stories about the landscape as compelling and interesting as the portrait. This is not easy to do, but crucial. In the seminal book, Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues (Chicago University Press, 1991), Shanto Iyengar shows what happens if we don't. Iyengar found that when people watch news stories that lack context, they focus on the individuals. Without any other information to go on, viewers tend to blame the people portrayed in the story for the problem and its solution. But when audiences watch stories with context — landscape stories — they assign responsibility to individuals and institutions. Rather than a steady diet of news framed as portraits, we need more landscapes that bring the context into the frame. Advocates must help reporters do a better job describing the landscape so the context becomes visible.
III. Linking singular issues to meta messages
A. The components of a message
Framing effectively means you've emphasized your values and illustrated the landscape in a way that leads logically to the policy you seek. Begin by clearly and simply specifying the components of a message using these three questions:- What's wrong?
- Why does it matter?
- What should be done about it?
A message example from obesity prevention
As an example, consider this core message used to publicize a study of fast food sold in California high school cafeterias, released by California Project LEAN (a project of the California Department of Health Services) and the Public Health Institute in 2000. The study highlighted the surprisingly high percentage of high schools with branded fast food outlets on campus, and called for institutional solutions at both the local school district and state government levels. The core message, in terms of the three questions above, was:Project LEAN's message reflects a strategic approach to communicating about obesity prevention. The problem statement does not attempt to describe every facet of life that may contribute to youth obesity; it focuses on the specific problem of fast food sold on high school campuses. The values statement, while it could be more explicit, calls for responsible action to protect the health of the next generation. The solution statement articulates two concrete policy actions that, while not intended to solve the entire problem of obesity, will certainly make a difference in the environment within which schools and students are making their nutrition-related decisions. Advocates in this situation, like any other, have to be ready to counter the opposition, who, in this case, will argue that fast food on campus simply offers a tasty, low cost choice to students and a source of revenue for the school. They will insist that fast food can be part of a healthy diet and that the obesity problem is really about a lack of exercise. The Project LEAN messengers had to be steadfast in their message that the health of students is at stake here and so government has a duty to help the schools provide appealing, affordable alternatives to fast food. The benefit of developing and adhering to such a focused and strategic message statement was apparent in the news coverage that followed the release of the 2000 California High School Fast Food survey. The event resulted in substantive news articles and opinion pieces in many California newspapers, many of which reflected the frame of shared institutional responsibility for addressing the problem of youth obesity. By contrast, many of the other news pieces on nutrition issues appearing during the same period were more likely to be superficial "food features" that ignored the context of food decisions, resorting to traditional, individual-oriented advice about diet and exercise habits.
- What's wrong? Fast food is widespread on high school campuses.
- Why does it matter? Fast food on campus contributes to youth obesity and endangers the health of the next generation.
- What should be done? Two solutions are key: a) Schools must promote appealing, affordable healthy food options for students, and b) the government must provide adequate funds for food service (so that local school districts do not have to supplement their food service budgets by contracting with fast food vendors).
Framing effectively across issues: The evolving meta message
Advocates working on progressive issues share a fundamental world view that reflects their values. They might not always agree on every issue or strategy, but they agree that the progress society makes is dependent on the choices individuals have and the environments in which they make those choices. They recognize the interconnection between individual actions and the settings and circumstances surrounding those actions. They understand that we share a collective obligation to the greater good. Those who oppose progressive values see the world differently. The primary reason for society's advancement, they believe, is personal initiative. Consequently, anything that inhibits that initiative is bad; anything that fosters it is good. Progressives certainly don't eschew personal initiative, but they understand that it is constrained, or bolstered, by the world around it. Drawing the connections between the system that we live in and the outcomes for individuals is at the core of a meta message that would connect across various issues. The box below suggests several questions you can use to develop a clear description of the landscape of your issue. The better advocates get at describing the landscape of their own issue and articulating the core values they hold, the closer we will get to an evolving meta message for social change.Answer these questions to see the landscape around your policy goals:
Money and power- Who decides?
- Who was left out?
- Who has influence?
- Who got paid?
- What laws led to the current policy?
- What is the administrative and/or regulatory process?
- What else can be done to shape the policy?
- How could we get more transparency and engagement?
- Who benefits with the policy as it is (or as it's proposed)?
- Who suffers with the policy as it is (or as it's proposed)?
- Do patterns emerge when we disaggregate the data?
- Where is our base?
- What's our infrastructure for building and moving our base (e.g. canvassing, registration, database, phoning, events, etc.)?
Emphasize level 1 values
Lakoff describes three levels for messages. Level 1 is the expression of overarching values like fairness or responsibility — the core values that motivate us to change the world. Level 2 is the issue we work on, like housing, the environment, schools, or health. Level 3 is about the nitty-gritty of those issues, including the policy detail or strategy for achieving change. Messages can be generated from any Level, but Level 1 is most important. It is at Level 1 that the broadest number of people connect in the deepest way. According to Lakoff, people's support or rejection of an issue will be determined by whether they can identify and connect with the Level 1 value. Values are motivators, and messages should reinforce and activate values. Messages, therefore, should articulate Level 1 and not get mired in Level 3. You have to know your Level 3 details; you just don't have to talk about them in every situation. The possibility of a meta message lies in the fact that many advocates share Level 1 values despite working on different Level 2 issues. The key to a meta message is not that every advocate for every issue utters exactly the same words. Rather, in the context of all their messages, advocates should voice their Level 1 values. The second component of the meta message is the emphasis on interconnection, or in our shorthand above, the idea of a landscape rather than a portrait. The similarity between our issues is that they reflect the understanding that individual's actions are determined at least in part by the settings and circumstances surrounding them. People don't make decisions or take action in a vacuum; the landscape matters.
Communicating at all levels is key
1 By emphasizing the Level 1 values and landscapes, advocates will do two things at once. First, they will make their own message more effective and avoid getting bogged down in Level 3 details that are better left for the negotiating table. Second, advocates will be reinserting into public discourse the very reasons why their issue matters and why other people's issues matter. They will advocate for themselves and simultaneously reinforce the values behind their allies working on different Level 2 issues. Describing the landscape vividly for one issue will make it easier for other advocates to explain how the environment surrounding individuals affects their chances to succeed. Articulating and echoing Level 1 values and making the landscape visible are the key components of a meta message. It means that rather than being dictated from on high, the meta message will be constantly evolving. The meta message will be the result of advocates on a variety of issues getting better at evoking values and landscapes as they respond to the specific context in which they are delivering the message. Messy, but real.All levels are important
Each level has a purpose and a place in a comprehensive communications strategy and you simply cannot have a comprehensive communications strategy without attention to all three. Policy advocacy in particular requires attention to all three as each audience we seek to move requires a different level of detail or evidence. Right wing think tanks exist to "back up" their Level 1 frames with hundreds of "studies" and other forms of "evidence" designed to offer justification for desired policy initiatives. For progressive policy initiatives that fall outside of the usual pro-corporate bend, detailed analysis and rationale including impact and implementation issues are necessary in certain quarters. Being strategic means knowing which audience requires what level of communication.C. Message themes across issues
Messages illustrate the landscape when they reveal the role of institutions in creating problems and fashioning solutions, exposing the impact of the system on individuals. Meta-messages will emerge as the injustices are seen as patterns of unfairness across issues. The challenge is that the dominant message across issues today emphasizes the values of an unfettered free market system — the polar opposite of the social justice values underlying most progressive policies (see the box below). This counterpoint to the progressive point of view says that if individuals apply themselves they can achieve anything, and alternatively, if they are in trouble, it's their own fault. Our meta message needs to use Level 1 values and landscape descriptions to counter that idea by imbedding personal achievement in a larger context. The meta message needs to communicate:- the problem exists;
- they are the result of systemic failings and, importantly,
- they can be fixed.
Sample messages that share level 1 values
Consider how these sample messages, with very different Level 2 issues and Level 3 policies, can reinforce the same Level 1 value, in this case fairness and equity. The policies given here are examples — at any given time, the specific of the policy may change. When it does, the values statement may remain consistent, or it too may change. Level 2 issue: alcohol Level 3 policy goal: limit the number of places alcohol is sold; impose a fee on current outlets Message:- What's wrong? Too many liquor stores detract from the quality of life.
- Why does it matter? It is not fair that certain families are subjected to such degraded conditions. Every family should have the opportunity to raise their children in a healthy environment.
- What should be done? The city should make a rule to limit the number of liquor stores allowed within a certain radius.
- What's wrong? People who need housing can't get it even though they work two jobs. Without a place to live basic family life is shattered.
- Why does it matter? It is not fair that hard working people cannot find an affordable home.
- What should be done? The city council should pass the rent subsidy resolution immediately.
- What's wrong? While we have achieved great progress in reducing smoking, there are still large populations, primarily in low income communities of color, that are regularly exposed to toxic secondhand smoke.
- Why does it matter? It is not fair that some of our cities' workers are protected and others are not.
- What should be done? We should enact uniform clean indoor ordinances to protect workers in all workplaces, including restaurants and bars.
- What's wrong? Whole sectors of our work force are not getting basic medical care for themselves or their families.
- Why does it matter? In addition to their hard work and general contribution to our economy, undocumented workers contribute millions of dollars to this nation's coffers through their payroll and sales taxes. It's only fair that they receive the same basic health insurance as other workers.
- What should be done? The state should provide basic coverage for all workers.
The special case of government
"You know," says media strategist Charles Fulwood, "when there is a hurricane or an earthquake, they don't call up IBM, they call up city hall." It doesn't matter if you are working on mental health or children's health, living wage, teen pregnancy, violence, tobacco or poverty — in every issue, government needs to play a role. But government has been effectively demonized in recent years, primarily by conservatives who want to shrink it out of existence or liberals who want to "devolve" it. Consequently, we are starting from a defensive posture, making the reframing job more difficult. It is made harder still by that fact that everybody can see when government messes up, and we have to acknowledge that. Much of our advocacy, in fact, is aimed at rectifying government inertia, errors, mistaken priorities, or downright corruption. This image is reinforced in the news since the news media's constitutional role is to "watch dog" government (as opposed to corporations); consequently, local, state and federal government is frequently depicted in coverage as a "bungling institution." Thus, our unhappy starting place. To turn this message around, advocates need to be able to say confidently why government's role is reasonable, important, and feasible. Our message has to move from government as a bungling or corrupt or unnecessary institution to government as protector, enabler, and provider. Though we, too, are often calling on government to change its practice, it is because we want government to be more responsive to people's needs, not disappear altogether. This does not require fancy language. It does require that advocates frequently repeat the courage of their convictions about the role of government in the face of steady and forceful opposition. Do you have basic capacity for effective media advocacy? At minimum, advocates need an infrastructure to support the development and delivery of their messages, including:- A media list of reporters, producers, and assignment editors, organized by medium and issue of interest (or beat), updated every six months;
- Cultivated relationships with key reporters so they know you, your organization, and what stories are likely to emerge;
- Identified spokespeople who are ready to talk to those reporters at a moment's notice;
- Regular training for advocates so the cadre of confident spokespeople grows and adapts with the issue; and
- Ongoing issue research, policy development, and constituency organizing so strategy and its accompanying message can be refined, redeveloped and redeployed as needed.