Re-framing is critical
Posted: 20th February 2022
How about this for reframing?
The greatest threat to life on earth is radiation from nuclear weapons or damaged nuclear plants. Ukraine is a flashpoint for thermonuclear war.
It also has 15 operational nuclear reactors, in addition to Chernobyl.
Any of them could be severely damaged by friendly or enemy fire and cause another catastrophe.
The world cannot afford war in Ukraine, period. Biden knows this. So does Putin; Russia is in a much more vulnerable position geographically to be hit by radiation. They MUST find a peaceful solution, no matter which side is at fault.
Peace, Carol Wolman, MD
Re-framing the conversation
I think a relatively simple thing is blunting effective outreach on
the Ukrainian situation and other important issues. If I include
talking points and key phrases of western governments, politicians or
the corporate media in my writing, speaking, and headlines, I give
those talking points a platform and further reinforce them in the readers’
psyches. This is especially problematic given cognitive dissonance;
the information I and many of you provide is contrary to the Western
narrative audiences grew up consuming for generations. Even if I think
I’m merely setting up the background, I’m creating an even higher
barrier for myself to overcome by bringing that narrative into the
room or even letting it take the stage first which it already dominates.
Those entities are so effective in their work and have the head start
in reinforcing their memes across platforms due to Bernays and others.
My new approach is to a) get to the point and simply state the
issue/facts and what I want from the beginning of what I’m
writing/saying, b) in the instance of Ukraine, start with the U.S.
coup d’etat and subsequent facts as background history, which most
have not heard, and c) if I must mention the dominant narrative, I do
so in words such as “contrary to U.S. claims.” The audience is well
aware of them. I do not repeat the U.S. claims and then dispute them.
I simply provide my information and facts, with sources for the
readers to research. I especially don’t repeat their claims in
headlines. That includes phrases like “Russian aggression”, “Russian
invasion”, “breakaway regions”, “pro-Russia”, “separatists”, “Biden
believes”, even in jest, because it gets a conditioned reaction, no
matter whether a reader supports Biden or not. The words around those
key phrases/frames, even saying they are wrong, are ignored. When I
send on articles, I will sometimes eliminate the article title if it
is objectionable or make a new title. I also say “President Putin”,
for example, to remind and reintroduce respect and also because the
media uses “Putin” in its propaganda as another hostile knee-jerk meme.
A media professor once said that, contrary to popular belief, the
American TV series All In the Family was not effective in combating
racism. The professor’s father was a bigot, and it was his father’s
favorite show. He loved what Archie Bunker said. Any other message or
attempted satire was completely lost on him. By giving “Archie’s”
views a stage, it reinforced them. My professor thought that many
racist Americans were empowered by the show.
It’s important to deny space to those destructive views.
It’s critical to re-frame. I don’t step into the government’s narrow
frame or the war industry’s narrow frame. I create a new large one.
Nina Beety