Framing Frames in the Service of Science
Published by Greg April 9th, 2007 in Science Essays, Framing ScienceThis post has three objectives:
- To encourage the continuation of the conversation;
- To make a few more remarks regarding “Frames”; and
- To make other remarks, not necessarily related to “Frames” about the single objective that we are working towards: Bringing the public on board with science to a greater degree than it is at present
.
Encouraging the conversation.
This is obvious. The evidence is strong that evolutionary biology has made virtually no advances at all in capturing the hearts and minds of the American people. The hearts and minds of people elsewhere are much more on the side of, and in league with, science. The difference is not the scientist, it is the people. America is a fundamentalist christian nation, on average, and in this country the war on science by christian fundamentalists is raging and has been going on for some time to a much greater degree than elsewhere. (And it does not help that this war has a “Leftern Front” as well.)
The fact that this can be “blamed” on the public is not indicative of what we need to do about it. One thing that we do need to do, however, is to have this conversation. At a recent gathering of like minded evolutionists, I heard two or three scientists say the same thing that I hear many scientists say: Scientists, being totally nerdy, cannot communicate with the public. I had had enough, and I jumped up and ranted at the audience for several minutes: We are excellent communicators. We need all the time to communicate with colleagues in other disciplines, and this requires that we step outside the local sub disciplinary shorthand and simply explain exactly what we mean. We teach introductory and middle level classes in our fields. We know what we are doing.
The reason that scientists have not gotten the message out (besides the recalcitrance of the public itself) is because within scientific (and more broadly, academic) culture, it is considered wrong to communicate with the public. Do you realize that every science blogger is risking her or his career by being a blogger? Why do you think so many bloggers do not openly reveal their names?
Frames
Goffman introduced the concept of Frames, Frame Analysis and related conceptual tools in the 1970s. A frame is a context critical to and necessary but not sufficient for generating meaning by an individual. A frame is something in someone’s head, but since it relates to shared generation of meaning, and frames can generally be thought of as larger, shared, cultural constructs that facilitate and are necessary for meaningful communication, frames are big.
By moving a word between sentences we can see it’s meaning change. In Standard English each of the following has a typical meaning:
- I see a duck. (a duck is a kind of water bird)
- Duck! (something is about to hit your head)
- Don’t duck out on me. (I’m subtlety indicating that I don’t entirely trust you.)
The punctuation, phrases, etc. (or lack thereof) in each sentence “reframes” the word duck. This is a good example of frame shifting, but it is a trivial one … Goffmanian Frames are larger scale contextual references used in the mind.
The “largest” possible frame is The World View. However, most Goffmanian Frame Analysis is involved with frames of a smaller scale. It is counterproductive to use the terms “World View” and “Frame.” A World view is immutable (right up until the day it changes for an individual) while Frames are not. More importantly, frames are things we use more than one of. A person with a single frame is, truly, neurologically pathological and there are such conditions. Normally people switch between frames all the time. In my earlier post I gave an example of a conversation in which such a frame shift happened. (see that earlier post for links to other discussions in the blogosphere.)
So let’s look at an example of this not too small, not too big, but just right size Goffmanian Frame. Read the following sets of sentences:
Frame A:
- Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolutionary theory.
- Your hypothesis regarding the origin of tetrapods is untestable.
- The preponderance of evidence from genetics (and other sources) most strongly suggests that all life on Earth descends from a single common ancestor. This can be taken as fact.
Frame B:
- In theory, Darwin’s idea forms the basis for biology.
- Evolutionists believe that the Natural Selection Hypothesis can cause speciation.
- The idea that all life on Earth descends from a single common ancestor is an assumption.
These frames use the terms “theory,” “hypothesis” and “fact/assumption” (=truth) in roughly parallel sentences … parallel in a functional sense, not a grammatical sense. But if you are an experienced biologist or biology educator you know that Frame A represents utterances of a careful scientist and Frame B represents utterances of a creationist disguised as a biology teacher. There are clues in sentence construction and specific terminology that make this unambiguous. Now consider this fourth sentence:
“I disagree with you about your interpretation of Australopithecus africanus.”
In Frame A the next sentence may be something like: “Thackaray shows that the males probably have saggital crests, so there is more sexual dimorphism than your interpretation suggests.” In Frame B the next sentence may be something like: “There is no evidence that evolution has even happened. Where are the transitional fossils? Huh?”
I think the reader can usefully go over these sentences and find the frame indicators and play around with this quite a bit, so I won’t use up valuable blogosphere space to do this. There are several little tricks and clues here. I’ll just mention two: In Frame A, sentence 3, the scientist really wants to use the common origin of life as an assumption, perhaps in constructing a phylogenetic model from DNA data derived from a diversity of life forms. So the scientist needs to construct a “fact” from a complex set of information but is comfortable doing so because there is so much darn evidence in support of it. This fact will serve as an assumption in the forthcoming analysis.
In Frame B, the creationist uses the weak term “idea” which carries with it no indication of evidence, research, history of hypothesis testing etc., and links this weak term with the accusatory (nearly conspiratorial) term “assumption.” In the first case, a term like “evidence” has important frame-referential meaning because it is used so often in science as basic. Evidence gathering is one of the most important tasks of a scientist. To a creationist, the term “evidence” is almost exclusively used in the phrase “no evidence.” To a creationist, “evidence” is the stuff scientists make up. For the second case, the term “assumption” for a scientist is almost always used in phrases like “It is reasonable to assume X … should X be different than this assumption, our results will be subject to modification,” while the creationist almost exclusively uses this term in the phrase “X is merely an assumption.” Creationists use the “assumption” problem as the basis for the single most important accusation they make about science: Scientists have predetermined that “Darwin was right” … and force their observations to fit this assumption.
The discourse between evolutionary biologists and creationists is very much informed by, and understood in context of, Goffmanian Frame Analysis. This should be obvious at this point.
I think Goffmanian Frame Analysis can be useful in science’s efforts to interface with the public as well. The route to this approach probably lies in the study of the frame shift between scientific thinking and media reporting. For instance, all scientific research is passed through a kind of filter that has these components (though not all components will affect the reporting every time):
- There are exactly two sides to every story.
- A result is important if it overthrows a previous result. Otherwise it is not.
- A result relates to humans, preferably in reference to health.
- Novel findings are the opposite of prior findings in all ways.
This filter is not a frame shift, this is not a list of frames, there are no frames here. The frame shift requires a second level of analysis to be understood.
The words “finding,” “result,” “discovery” etc. are the words that most often relate to, and virtually define science in the media-frame. These concepts have the attributes you would expect given this filter (a discovery is always an opposition to standing belief, etc.). However, in the science frame, there are other things that define science as well, and for these terms, the meaning is different. A finding may be a confirmation of a prior finding, or a small refinement. It is possible to change one part of a model without changing all of it. Only rarely does a novel result overthrow anything, and the importance of a scientific finding is not related to it’s connection to humanity or to the degree to which it reverses prior thinking (though these may be part of the findings importance, of course).
The frame shift here between science and media is more subtle than the frame shift between creationists and scientists. (And the model I’m giving here is very very preliminary … you are, dear reader, looking at a first draft I’m banging out in my basement!)
The prior discussion regarding “Framing Science” involved an examination of Frame Analysis. Thanks to Matthew Nisbet, I’ve not got some literature on what I’ll call Entmanian Frames. Let me make a few comments on what I think these are and how they relate to Goffmanian frames.
First, it is clear from the additional literature I’ve read (see Nisbet’s comment on my post for more reading if you really feeling like being masochistic) that Entmanian Frames, the frames Nisbet and Mooney wrote about in their science piece, derive from Goffman’s frames. So my initial assertions, and overall, the criticisms I leveled in my earlier post still apply. In other words, my reading of additional literature has not changed my mind much about what I said, though it does give me more stuff to say!!!
I call this Entmanian Frame to distinguish the concept from Goffman’s frames, and because Entman was the guy who seems to have summarized and advanced the concept of frames in the area of media. Interestingly and tragically, Entman did not understand Goffmanian frames at all, as is evident from his paper, and in fact, he only cites Goffman indirectly. In a peer reviewed article, this is an explicit statement that the original Goffman literature is not important to the new paper.
Entmanian frames suffer from being poorly defined and vague. The basic description or definition of a frame is absent from the literature. The word “frame” is used for everything from basic meaning to almost any aspect of the context of the formation of meaning.
I don’t want to bore the reader with what could be a two page analysis (and brief at that level) of the problem. Let me put it this way: Discourse analysis has consumed Goffmanian frames, and dedicated a piece of shit. I think the work many people (including Nisbet) are doing in this area is important, but I think it is clear that grounding in strong theory and training in managing theoretical constructs is not part of that particular sub discipline. In the current discussion, you could substitute all terms and phrases based on:
frame
with:
Social construction of meaning
and not change the meaning or the framework. Frame analysis has lost all of it’s analytical power. The phrase/term “frame” is being used to mean “stuff happened related to communication.” This does not say anything about the value of the conversation in the field of public engagement or media. All I’m saying is that Goffmanian Frame Analysis is a fantastically useful and powerful toolbox, but somebody left the toolbox in the back of the pickup … the most useful (and used) spanners are missing, and if you found them, they’d be pretty rusty anyway.
What to do, What to do?
But we still have a problem. I agree with my colleagues (see this) who have noted that it is wrong for scientists to suck up to the media or the public in any way that compromises the scientific framework for thinking about the natural world. I disagree with assertions that on the whole casting false pearls before real swine is OK.
One of our problems is that the scientific way of thinking is useful in areas outside of science, but it has not been strong in other areas. To the contrary, scientific thinking has been rejected in many disciplines and replaced with such goggely gook as “discourse analysis.” Post modern and post-post modern forms of analysis are fun and useful, but these approaches should not replace scientific thinking in science (of course) and the pressure to be on top of the latest post-post modern theory at the expense of clear thinking has ruined scientific thinking in many of the social sciences.
So what? Well, frankly I don’t really care too much. But what does matter is that the public at large gets less and less scientific reasoning as part of their “frame” construction … through education as well as media and day to day conversations than they actually need to have.
This is coupled with the fact that the overall amount of time spent on science education is insufficient to begin with, but the “body” of scientific knowledge has grown, and for some reason we feel the need to touch on everything over the course of study in high school, then do it again in college. The amount of information you need just to understand what happens in and about cells for AP biology is probably five times more than the amount of information you needed to have a basic understanding of biology as a whole a few decades ago.
We could extend high school a year or two, we could rationalize the relationship between high school and college, we could pare down what we try to teach.
The objective I’m leading to here is long term: To make the scientific frame a common part of our culture. The scientific frame should be readily accessible to every citizen (in their minds, of course) and it should be perfectly normal and common for people to switch into it when they encounter science.
This is why I believe the following, which some may find obnoxious and shocking:
Not all “World Views” are legitimate.
__________________________________________
Related Posts:
- Why scientists are not as good as creationists …
- Framing Science “Paper Is Deeply Flawed
- Framing Frames in the Service of Science
- Framing Nesbit: Is He Offering Us McScience?
- Can we frame something and see how it goes?
- Science is the BEST!!!
- Why we foam at the mouth
- Atheism is not the problem
- Instead of framing, let’s go camping!
24 Responses to “Framing Frames in the Service of Science”
- 1 Pingback on Apr 11th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
- 2 Pingback on Apr 16th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
- 3 Pingback on Apr 18th, 2007 at 11:38 am
- 4 Pingback on Apr 19th, 2007 at 6:01 am
- 5 Pingback on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
- 6 Pingback on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
- 7 Pingback on May 30th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
- 8 Pingback on May 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Greg, you should take the most important points in these last couple of posts (especially the Goffman stuff) and turn it into a letter to Science.
I second that emotion.
Most of my thinking about this ended up in this comment at Respectful Insolence. I tried to point out that glossing over subtleties for a freshman biology class or even “spinning” a grant proposal is not the same as doing a more-slick-than-accurate PR job for the general public.
In all honesty, I think that if the original “paper” had focused more on concrete proposals for actions and less on anthropology jargon (terminology contested in “turf wars”, at that) we’d probably see a great deal more agreement and almost certainly see more fruitful discussion.
Hi Greg,
As with your last post on the subject, there is a lot to chew on here, and a blog comment can only cover so much. I generally agree with you that people are using some fuzzy terms - there are important differences between the Lakoff view of framing and the classical Goffman view that you are doing a good job of trying to clarify.I’m not going to enter that debate at the moment. I’m going to propose a way of looking at this that I haven’t heard anyone else mention.
I think a good place to start this conversation is to take it out of the realm of politics for a moment and put it squarely in the realm of science education. A lot of research has been done about how to do a better job of communicating the facts and theories of science. This research is summarized pretty well in How People Learn, a book published by the National Research Council (if you follow the link you can either buy the book OR read it online!). The impetus for this book arose out of the ongoing “crisis” in science education - too few people choosing to major in science, too little understanding of science among the general public, etc. What they found is really critical to this debate about framing, and I think a brief discussion of the book might help the quality of the debate that Nisbet & his colleague started.
This research about science education actually matches quite nicely with the research from social sciences about framing. In How People Learn, the authors note that there is a difference between science “experts” and laypeople. Experts have a rich conceptual model (a “frame”) that organizes their understanding of their area of expertise. This model lets them do things like make predictions when they get new information, discuss the details of science with their peers using various forms of shorthand (linguistic, visual, etc.), and conceptualize new areas of research and inquiry. When it is incomplete or incorrect it can also (cf Kuhn) prevent experts from fully comprehending conflicting research results, so it can be resistent to change. Still it is the way we think, and not something we can avoid or eliminate.
The problem for science educators is that everyone has conceptual models about the ways that the world works. The conceptual models may be incomplete, incorrect, or simply muddled, but they exist. Research on science education has shown that when we simply provide students (either K-12 students or adults) with the experts “scientific” frame of understanding, they often try to map that frame onto their pre-existing model.
A great example is teaching students about the seasons. Why does earth have seasons? If you ask that question to most people who have had enough education to know about the earth orbiting the sun, they will say that the earth has seasons because it is farther from the sun in the winter and closer in the summer (they discuss this in How People Learn, but I have tried it on my undergraduate introductory environmental science students, and this really is the most common explanation students come up with). Old school science education would have us simply tell them that they are incorrect and explain that the real reason for the seasons has to do with the tilt of the earth. But if you explain this phenomenon to students and then ask them why it is warmer in summer and cooler in winter, you’ll see an odd phenomenon. Many of them will explain to you that the part of the earth that is “tilted” towards the sun is closer to the sun, and therefore warmer. In other words, you have given them the correct information, but they have mapped that new understanding on to their old model to create a hybrid that is partially correct (i.e. - the seasons result from the tilt of the earth), but conceptually incorrect. The “real” reason that earth tilt affect seasons is that the energy from the sun is hitting earth at closer to a right angle in the summer - therefore more energy is hitting each square meter of land. You can demonstrate this easily using a flashlight and a globe. If you shine the flashlight on the globe at a right angle, say at the equator, all of the energy is concentrated on a circle of a particular area. If you shine the light at an angle (say on the Northen Hemisphere), that same energy is dispersed over a larger oval area. Not everyone completely understands the concept after this demonstration, but MANY more do.
So why am I going on about this? Research on science understanding shows us that we MUST both understand and address students pre-existing conceptual models if we want to really teach them science. The discussion we are in right now about framing in the political arena is simply another version of this same problem. It is more complicated, in part because we are addressing conceptual frames that encompass more than just scientific understandings of how the world works. But it is no less important.
I’ll end with this note - I think your example above is an example that gets at the differing use of language between a science-literate individual and a evolution critic, but you don’t quite get to the underlying frame of those people. The problem is not just in the use of language, it is at the level of what constitutes evidence, what is ones understanding of how the world works, and what are appropriate areas of inquiry. Successfully communicating with creationists who are willing to engage in a conversation requires us to first understand their conceptual model of the world, and then see if we can expand their vision to encompass our conceptual model. Not an easy task, but it’s the only way to proceed.
LOT to chew on …nuf said! Could you elaborate on these guys?
the “Leftern Front” ? Who are they in the discourse?
I think it is clear that Nisbet & Mooney has failed in efficiently communicating what they want to do. If the above interpretation is correct they have also failed to put their message (in the Goffman sense) in the correct frame for scientists.
Since their definitions and arguments are still unavailable it is rather meaningless to continue that discussion. I believe the analysis in the post shows why frames done right are useful and I hope it will be continued. Because as Blake I think suggestions of actions is what we want to end up having.
But N&M larger and fuzzier framework is correct in the sense that this is what we want to do. So while I agree with the sentiment that not all “World Views” are legitimate, it isn’t really useful here. It is useful if we can put it over into the media frame.
FWIW, one way to pass through or modify their filter may be that most reporters probably already know implicitly that science is powerful and more successful than it should be if their official ‘two sides’ model was right. That is, the model is imposed by the neutrality or ‘fairness’ requirement journalism often strive for.
In reality, most papers and cable networks have a political tint. What they can, or should have, are science sections that are “fair” to sides of science controversies. The problem may be that they seem to be rather efficiently sequestered from interacting asymmetrically on a science side vs social issues sides controversies basis.
If I’m not totally deluding myself it could perhaps be possible to use the leverage of successful use (”Moon landings! Hubble pictures! No nation left behind technologically!”) to push for having them integrate with other news and reports coverage. It should be in such a way that they can present the science and/or technological sides legitimacy when compared to a non-factual political/religious side.
To change their view of ‘fairness’ to be fair to proven methods of knowledge, if you will. Incidentally, it could also mean a larger role for science journalism and more science journalists.
Yes, but the problem is, which RBB’s comment reminds us of, to break or modify the bounded rationality of an inappropriate frame.
However, I don’t think it is possible to step into any individuals fundamentalist frame (such as most creationist frames) to change it. These frames and most of their individuals are heavily guarded against change and/or switch, and perhaps individually indicative of pathology as the post’s argument suggests.
The conversion descriptions from fundamentalist positions one reads seem to most often be triggered by them being presented by material that shows that they have been lied to, or at least not gotten all of the available alternatives presented for them. Possibly it could also help if their group numbered few individuals compared to normal positions.
On the other hand, one could possibly publicly try to affect change in a groups shared frame as presented. But I have currently no idea how. Which happen to get back to the post’s attempt of analysis of such frames.
I finally got almost all of my thoughts in one place. Whether or not it does you or anybody else any good, I haven’t the foggiest idea.
RBB said: “Research on science understanding shows us that we MUST both understand and address students pre-existing conceptual models if we want to really teach them science. ”
As someone who was educated/trained as a scientist and science teacher and has taught in the public schools, I certainly appreciate this.
RBB continues: “The discussion we are in right now about framing in the political arena is simply another version of this same problem.”
I think that depends on whose discussion you are in. Nisbet seems to view science framing in the context of “changing public opinion” rather than “educating the public.”, as indicated in Nisbet’s presentation
“Framing Science: understanding the Battle Over Public Opinion in Policy Debates”
“Science literacy and public engagement models are limited, esp. when thinking about the “mass public.”
For strategic communication, there is nothing essentially unique or different about science from other political issues.
Battle for public opinion is about activating favorable predispositions and these predispositions are then used as powerful filtering devices by public.
Frames are the primary tools of activation. Miserly citizens use frames in combination with their value predispositions to cut down on information costs.”
[end quotation]
There are actually two issues. One has to do with science education, the other has to do with changing public opinion.
Though there is obvious overlap (you can change opinions through education), they are far from equivalent. The approach one takes depends con which goal ne is out to achieve.
My argument is that you can do a better job, more broadly, more effectively, more efficiently, with changing (as you go) the public opinion … keeping the public with you … if the public is primed via the education system to, basically, “get” science.
I am reposting my question: who are the clockblockers of the “leftern front”? I mean, the left actually is trying to prevent evolutionist/science education?
Who are they? What is a typical leftern front assault on the integrity of evo sci or its framing?
Ah, sorry, I missed that earlier comment. But I admit that I worded my post the way I did hoping someone would ask!
The postmodern/deconstructionist/etc movement (they keep changing their name so we won’t see them) is very anti science, and very active in doing damage to science.
There is, of course, a legitimate critique of science, and we see that in work of people like Alan Goodman. But among the “science studies” crowd there are a lot of people who do that sort of thing because, in my unabashed opinion, they otherwise lack creativity and/or intelligence. Their attacks are cheap, easily disputed but sometimes very destructive.
So would they actually be true lefternists? Or maybe they just don’t fit the paradigms that are proposed and stereotyped for a quick sell, or an easy to comprehend frame, something geared towards the -neo liberal, but no one else? Like the problem of the scientists, framing but not; the stereotypes of other ideas that are difficult to compress into soundbytes, but can’t be; but the expectation, even from science, for easy to digest soundbytes?
I mean, alot of dialogue that is right wing is actually the old left gone bonkers, and is proposed in the disguise of social justice, etc, but has developed a framing of a kind of pseudo science that creeps into the realm of other discourse, and then steps away and disacows that dioscourse as flawed, all the while employing it! Though it is chock full of opinions and statements that are laden with biases that step outside the boundaries of actual science and into the realm of social critiques in the form of information dissemination, it then falls back on its known science as foil for logical rhetorical challenges.
” But I do know these guys postmodern/deconstructionist/etc movement (they keep changing their name so we won’t see them”. But how does that pertain here, to framing?I mean, who are the framers anyways? Names, stats, …I am looking for names;-)
Lately (hahwhahwhaw…you are so right;-) the phrase du jour to describe the post modernists is “neoliberal modernitist”;-) But they aren’t the only ones suffering this labelism- I mean should we call it “evolution theory” or ‘biological evolution”?
But as for destructive, well all scientists have biases outside of their discipline, and those biases can be quite like preaching to the proverbial neo-rap group at times(image of “mimes for jesus” float through my mind) while forgeting a larger, or a different audience, and frame by frame, though the consumers are tryin’ real hard to stay on track with you, are often off put off by bias behind a shield of science, but worse, sometimes the blatant herd envy in the discourse, with the scientist at the top of the heap, and the layman disregarded.
I mean it is everywhere in the marketisation process, but the primary framing of a market is in the world of ideas–not just the economic structures, social structures, etc that have gained so much fashionable press in the last five decades. The process is longer than that, and the audience is larger than Hegel and Kierkegaard, and the levels of sophistry are evident in all stages of the discourse, and not always with malice or corruptive intent.But like the critique of the conservatives, well the lefternist sure lack a sense of humor as well, especially in regards to their pet theories, and peoples.
Yes, th is is a tempest in a particular teapot.
I have no particular problem with addressing biases. I’m an anthropologist, after all. But I don’t think someone’s gender or skin color gives them an automatic lack of credibility.
Didn’t mean ta stir up yer tea leaves, but Skin color? Gender? Sure , ‘One of my best friends has both of those’
I had to re-read the post, looking for that race gender dialogue….hmmm…nope, not here.But you are right when you say that ” Frame analysis has lost all of it’s analytical power.” and I suggest that is because it got lost in the identity divisive politics of the last decades and its continuing effects in the dialogue, wooing the choir, but waking up the other neighbors who yell ‘keep it down over there.’ Maybe s/th is missing in the music?
Skin color has little with good science, or good scientists, and gender has been shown to enhance it. But framing science, and scientists as a palpable and palatable means of grasping for the meaning of the world, and evolution as its driving force, also means that the classic dichotomies of right/left wing, and liberal/conservative can be reworked a bit within the scientific dialogue itself, but it appears that the dialogue is stuck, circa 1993. Particularly harmful are the issues of class and gender, but that depends on where you look, and what effect you are looking for.
Gloria Bonder of Universidade de Buenos Aires has an interesting acknowledgement of this schism “it is actually increasing social inequality and exclusion of large groups of people, and building a polarised world, with no possible reversal in the near future. In this context, there is a growing concern about the present and future development of science and technology, a preoccupation about how to establish a positive and concrete relationship between science and technology, human rights and ethical values….” http://www.unesco.org/science/.....gender.htm
What might benefit more people if the dialogue wasn’t cast in old moulds, or at least was updated from sniping circa the Reagan era.
I have been told that white males are incapable of carrying out unbiased scientific research.
“white males are incapable of carrying out unbiased scientific research.”
It is because they are all rapists, but priviledged ones, too busy skulking around strippers at frat parties, no time for real unbiased science.Thinking that life is all about the big pachanga.Duh? It biases everything!Over and Over and Over again……Time to give up the game then. What IS white anyways? Or male for that matter?
When they say “Ideology and religion can screen out even dominant positive narratives about science, and reaching some segments of the public will remain a challenge”
and later
“In reality, citizens do not use the news media as scientists assume. Research shows that people are rarely well enough informed or motivated to weigh competing ideas and arguments…. citizens use their value predispositions ….as perceptual screens, selecting news outlets and Web sites whose outlooks match their own (2). Such screening reduces the choices of what to pay attention to and accept as valid.”
I am all for revolution, but the work horses of revolution are the Joe Nobodies out here,past the glimmer of the Ebony and Ivory towers with the 2.5 kids with no health care, tired parents, and spaghetti three nights a week, not necessarily the academics. Revolution, at least from a laymans perspective, is hard work, and that isn’t always echoed in the often flippant or overly confident topical manipulations of the two sides of an issue that keeps getting poked at us from dominant media outlets.
But what about when we the John Q. Rockenthriller, rock chippers and truck drivers of the world) look for views that are not necessarily our own, and seek to contribute to the larger dialogue, sans dogma, or to contribute the 27 cents worth of input thaty we have been able to glean outside of the coffee shop circles of high intelect? Generally, we are ignored as much on Joe Blogger as we are on NBC, and worse, our non-conforming, or not necessarily on board yet viewpoints are derided, or thought to be spam;-)
Wut’s da point a tryin? And do ya science fellahs really want an answer to the questions you ask?
Sure there is a lot to be said for subtlety at all levels, but in Joe and Joy Blow America, the differences can be huge: Janet Jacksons naked boobie versus Princes phallic shadow at the superbowl huge. One got too much tighty righty negative attention, one went right under the radar, and actually alot of us missed them both because we were watching the nature channel, or public tv, too sick of division mixed with factoids to give a shit what the hot topics are.