(re)framing / reclaiming the debate

[rman]

Recently Lakoff explained this (again) on AAR Morning Sedition;

- every word comes with a frame, we frame things as we speak
- with most words the frame is ingrained in peoples minds; the frame is understood without explanation
- framing is not the same thing as spin
- spin is *deceptive* framing
- deceptive framing requires re-framing: the (new) frame needs to be explained over and over again until it is ingrained in peoples minds
- reclaiming the language ('undeceiving' the framing of the debate) also requires re-framing:

ie simply calling taxes "investment in America" won't cut it, we'll have to explain what this investment means and how it benefits everyone (ie construction of roads, creating the internet, training of scientists). (it could be added that privatization of such things makes it more costly because on top of the costs, corporations want profit)
So we need both new catch-phrases *and* the story that goes with those.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

[mogster]

1. That's a good one!

To learn how the spin doctors play their game is very interesting.

There's also the question of WHY they do it. Don't they, like us, respect their voters integrity and also respect democracy (in which the real truth is meaningful, while spin is meaningless)?

That's where the 'feel-good'-doctrine comes in; the respect for the Repub voters are non-existent as far as real democracy/truth goes, the point is that they're supposed to feel good. And if you can make them feel good, that's a proof that you have the right thing going.

I heard a Repub spin doctor say this at the BBC during the RNC in NY earlier this year.

When the reporter inquired wether this was the right thing to do, he got the answer: Oh, your'e a JOURNALIST, you wouldn't understand.