The Framing Analysis
Framing Analysis
Framing analysis generally used to look how media construct the facts. Historically, the concept of ‘framing’ first suggested by Beterson in 1955, defined as a conceptual structure or a set of beliefs to organize our point of views of politics, policy and discourse and provides standard categories to appreciate reality. Then in 1974, Erving Goffman developed its definition, as strips of behavior to help people to read the ongoing activities. (Sobur, 2004). According to Goffman, frame analysis is an examination of ‘the organization of experience’ and ‘frame’ is a principle of organization that defines a situation. Frames are used to analyze ‘strips’: arbitrary slices cut from the stream of ongoing activity (Manning, 1992, p.122).
The core belief from Goffman’s framing is that people always look at the social environment and use their cognitive skills to make sense of daily life. Moreover, he assumed that individuals cannot fully understand the world so that they interpret their experiences to make sense of the world around them. This individual’s process of information called “primary frameworks”. (Scheufele, 2000).
There are two kinds of primary framework. First is natural framework, defined as situation that human could not control. It helps to interpret events from nature (such as: weather) and unintentional causes. In contrast, social framework is when the situation included the human intervention. As Goffman said, that it helps to locate, perceive, identify and label all actions and events from intentional human action (Manning, 1992; Scheufele, 2000). From these frameworks, it implies that people always learning from the social environment, whether through social interaction or through how media represent the event and reality.
Since Goffman, many researchers developed his idea and tried to define framing or frame, such as Entman (1993), as cited in his work: “Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to
Framing analysis generally used to look how media construct the facts. Historically, the concept of ‘framing’ first suggested by Beterson in 1955, defined as a conceptual structure or a set of beliefs to organize our point of views of politics, policy and discourse and provides standard categories to appreciate reality. Then in 1974, Erving Goffman developed its definition, as strips of behavior to help people to read the ongoing activities. (Sobur, 2004). According to Goffman, frame analysis is an examination of ‘the organization of experience’ and ‘frame’ is a principle of organization that defines a situation. Frames are used to analyze ‘strips’: arbitrary slices cut from the stream of ongoing activity (Manning, 1992, p.122).
The core belief from Goffman’s framing is that people always look at the social environment and use their cognitive skills to make sense of daily life. Moreover, he assumed that individuals cannot fully understand the world so that they interpret their experiences to make sense of the world around them. This individual’s process of information called “primary frameworks”. (Scheufele, 2000).
There are two kinds of primary framework. First is natural framework, defined as situation that human could not control. It helps to interpret events from nature (such as: weather) and unintentional causes. In contrast, social framework is when the situation included the human intervention. As Goffman said, that it helps to locate, perceive, identify and label all actions and events from intentional human action (Manning, 1992; Scheufele, 2000). From these frameworks, it implies that people always learning from the social environment, whether through social interaction or through how media represent the event and reality.
Since Goffman, many researchers developed his idea and tried to define framing or frame, such as Entman (1993), as cited in his work: “Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to
References: Baran, S.J and Davis, D.K. (2009). Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, Fifth Eds. USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Chong, D D 'Angelo, P. (2002). News Framing as Multiparadigmatic Research Program : A Response to Entman. Journal of Communication, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 870–888. Entman, R Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 205-242. Maning, Philip Maslog, C., Lee, S., Kim, H. (2006): Framing Analysis of a Conflict: How Newspapers in Five Asian Countries Covered the Iraq War. Asian Journal ofCommunication, Vol. 16, No.1, pp. 19-39. Matthes , J Reese, S.D. (2007). The Framing Project: A Bridging Model for Media Research Revisited. Journal of Communication Vol. 57, pp. 148-154. Scheufele, D.A Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication. Mass Communication & Society, Vol. 3, No. 2 &3, pp. 297–316. Sobur, A Gamson , W.A and Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In Research in Political Sociology, ed. RD Braungart. Vol 3, pp. 137–77. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Gitlin, T Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Tuchman, G. (1978) Tuchman G. 1978. Making News. New York: Free