---
title: Framing
url: https://propagandaarchive.org/write/framing/
description: 'A frame is the lens you ask your reader to look through: what the issue is about, whose problem it is, and what kind of fix fits.'
section: Write
---

![Illustration: a pre-1914 imperial intelligence-dossier collage of colonial telegraph logs, sepia field photography and empire maps.](https://propagandaarchive.org/static/generated/detail/hero-pre1914.jpg)

[Write](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/) · Handbook

# Framing

On this page

A frame is the lens you ask your reader to look through: what the issue is *about*, whose problem it is, and what kind of fix fits. The same facts read as a tax question, a fairness question or a safety question depending on the frame. Whoever sets the frame usually sets the terms of the debate.

## Do this

1. **Write the issue in one sentence three different ways.** For example: "a tax rise", "an investment in getting kids to school", "a question of who pays for roads". Pick the frame that fits both the truth and your audience's values ([Know your audience](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/audience/)).
2. **Name the problem, the cause, the judgement and the remedy.** Entman's (1993) four parts of a frame. If any is missing, readers fill it in, often with your opponent's version.
3. **Use your own words for the issue, not your opponent's.** Repeating the other side's frame, even to reject it, reinforces it ("I'm not a crook").
4. **Keep the frame true.** A frame chooses emphasis; it must not change the facts. If a reader who checks would feel tricked, you've crossed into [Semantic hijacking](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/semantic-hijack/) or [Euphemism / doublespeak](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/euphemism/).
5. **Test it on someone who disagrees.** If they say "that's not what this is about", you've learned where the fight is.

## What the research says

**The same choice, described differently, gets different answers.** Tversky & Kahneman (1981) gave participants an identical public-health choice described either as lives saved or as lives lost. Most chose the sure option when it was framed as gains and the gamble when framed as losses. See [Framing effect](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/framing-effect/).

**Emphasis frames shift which considerations people weigh.** Chong & Druckman (2007) review decades of work: frames work by making some considerations feel more relevant, not by adding new facts. They're weaker when people hear competing frames, and weaker among people with strong prior views. Druckman (2001) found frames from sources seen as credible work far better than from sources that aren't.

**Moral reframing reaches across divides.** Feinberg & Willer (2015) found arguments framed in the audience's moral values persuaded better than in the writer's own values, for positions associated with both left and right ([Moral foundations](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/moral-foundations/)).

**Frames can be anchors.** The first number or description a reader meets colours what follows ([Anchoring](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/anchoring/), [Priming](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/priming/)).

## Worked examples: real campaigns

Framing is used by every side. These pairs show opponents framing the same issue.

- **UK EU referendum, 2016.** Vote Leave framed membership as a question of sovereignty with "Take back control". The official Remain campaign, Britain Stronger in Europe, framed it as security and prosperity with "Stronger, safer and better off". Both frames chose the ground each side thought it could win on. (Shipman, 2016.)
- **US abortion debate, from the 1970s.** Each movement named itself after the value it wanted the issue to be about: "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Each largely declines to use the other's label.
- **US estate tax, 1990s–2001.** Opponents of the tax popularised the term "death tax", framing it as a tax on dying rather than, as supporters described it, a tax on large inheritances. Frank Luntz (2007) describes testing the phrase. Supporters kept "estate tax", and in the mid-2000s some Democrats called repeal a "Paris Hilton tax cut", framing it as a gift to heirs of the very wealthy.
- **India general election, 1971.** The opposition alliance campaigned on "Indira Hatao" (Remove Indira), framing the election as a verdict on one leader. Indira Gandhi reframed it as a verdict on poverty: "They say remove Indira, I say remove poverty" (Garibi Hatao). Her Congress party won a large majority.
- **Occupy Wall Street, 2011.** "We are the 99%" framed inequality as a vast majority against a small minority, making the audience part of the in-group by default.
- **Climate policy language, 2002.** A memo by Luntz for US Republicans advised that "climate change" sounded less frightening than "global warming". Some campaigners and news outlets later moved to "climate crisis", which carries more urgency (The Guardian changed its style guide in 2019). Both word choices carry emotional weight.

## Worked example: you applying it

*Invented case: Riverton's Measure 12, a half-cent sales tax for buses every ten minutes.*

| Part of the frame | For | Against |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Problem | Parents lose an hour a day driving children around. | Main Street shops already lose customers to the out-of-town mall. |
| Cause | Buses come every 40 minutes, so nobody uses them. | Sales tax makes local prices higher than the county line two miles away. |
| Judgement | Families deserve their time back. | Small shops shouldn't carry the cost of a service most customers won't use. |
| Remedy | Yes on 12: buses every ten minutes. | No on 12: fund buses from the county transport grant instead. |
| One line | "Buses every ten minutes. Your evenings back." | "Keep Main Street's prices fair. No on 12." |

Both frames are honest if the facts under them are true: the 40-minute headway, the price gap with the next county, and the existence of the county grant. Check each one before you publish ([Before you publish: the fair-play check](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/before-you-publish/)).

## Where it crosses the line

- Swapping a word's legal or technical meaning quietly mid-argument is [Semantic hijacking](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/semantic-hijack/).
- Hiding the operational fact behind soft wording ("revenue enhancement" for a tax, "right-sizing" for layoffs) is [Euphemism / doublespeak](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/euphemism/), whichever side does it.
- A frame that is only a virtue word with nothing checkable under it is [Glittering generalities](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/glittering-generalities/).
- A loaded label that replaces evidence about the target is [Name-calling](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/name-calling/).

## Go deeper

- [Framing effect](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/framing-effect/), [Anchoring](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/anchoring/), [Priming](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/priming/), [Moral foundations](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/moral-foundations/)
- Next chapter: [Messaging](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/messaging/)

## Sources

- Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. *Journal of Communication*, 43(4), 51–58.
- Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. *Science*, 211(4481), 453–458.
- Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. *Annual Review of Political Science*, 10, 103–126.
- Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? *Journal of Politics*, 63(4), 1041–1066.
- Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. (2015). From gulf to bridge. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, 41(12), 1665–1681.
- Lakoff, G. (2004). *Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate*. Chelsea Green.
- Luntz, F. (2007). *Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear*. Hyperion.
- Guha, R. (2007). *India after Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy*. Macmillan (on the 1971 election).
- Shipman, T. (2016). *All Out War: The Full Story of How Brexit Sank Britain's Political Class*. William Collins.

## Techniques

[Semantic hijacking](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/semantic-hijack/) [Euphemism / doublespeak](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/euphemism/) [Glittering generalities](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/glittering-generalities/) [Name-calling](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/name-calling/)

## Related

- [Know your audience](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/audience/)
- [Messaging](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/messaging/)
- [Framing effect](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/framing-effect/)
- [Moral foundations](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/moral-foundations/)
- [Semantic hijacking](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/semantic-hijack/)
- [Euphemism / doublespeak](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/euphemism/)