How the media shapes our perspectives on American shootings
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.
From Ideas to Paper 