Introduction
In the study of communication, framing is a pivotal concept that shapes how information is presented and interpreted. Robert Entman, a prominent scholar in media studies, has significantly contributed to this field by conceptualising framing as a process that influences public perception and discourse. His seminal work outlines four distinct functions of framing, which provide a structured lens for understanding how media and communicators define issues, attribute causality, evaluate moral implications, and propose solutions. This essay explores Entman’s four types of framing—problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation—within the context of communication studies. By examining each type with relevant analysis and evidence, the essay aims to elucidate their role in shaping narratives and influencing audiences, while also considering their broader implications in media and political communication.
Problem Definition
The first of Entman’s framing functions is problem definition, which refers to the process of identifying and highlighting a specific issue or event as a problem worthy of attention (Entman, 1993). This involves selecting aspects of a perceived reality and making them more salient in a communicating text. For instance, in reporting on climate change, media outlets might frame the issue as an urgent crisis by emphasising rising global temperatures and extreme weather events. By doing so, the problem is defined in a way that captures public concern. Entman argues that this selective emphasis shapes the audience’s understanding of what constitutes a problem, often overshadowing alternative perspectives. Therefore, problem definition is not merely a neutral act but a strategic choice that sets the agenda for public discourse, guiding attention to specific issues while potentially neglecting others.
Causal Interpretation
The second function, causal interpretation, focuses on attributing responsibility for the defined problem (Entman, 1993). This involves identifying the causes or origins of the issue, thereby influencing how audiences perceive accountability. For example, in framing economic inequality, a news outlet might attribute the problem to government policies, corporate greed, or systemic societal flaws, depending on the narrative it seeks to promote. Entman suggests that causal interpretation is critical because it directs blame or credit, shaping public opinion on who or what is responsible. This function often reveals underlying biases in communication, as different causal frames can lead to contrasting interpretations of the same issue, highlighting the power of communicators in shaping responsibility narratives.
Moral Evaluation
Moral evaluation, the third function, entails making ethical judgments about the problem and its causes (Entman, 1993). This aspect of framing assesses the moral implications of the issue, often invoking values or principles to evaluate the actions of individuals or institutions. For instance, in discussions of immigration, a frame might morally evaluate policies as either humane or unjust, depending on the perspective adopted. Entman notes that moral evaluation often appeals to the audience’s emotions, encouraging them to align with a particular stance. Indeed, this framing type can polarise opinions by presenting issues in terms of right or wrong, thereby influencing how audiences emotionally engage with the narrative.
Treatment Recommendation
Finally, treatment recommendation involves suggesting remedies or actions to address the defined problem (Entman, 1993). This function proposes solutions or policy responses, guiding audiences towards specific courses of action. For example, in framing a public health crisis like obesity, media might recommend government intervention through taxes on sugary drinks or advocate for individual responsibility through lifestyle changes. Entman argues that treatment recommendations are inherently persuasive, as they not only address the problem but also imply a preferred resolution. However, this framing can sometimes oversimplify complex issues by presenting solutions that may not fully account for underlying intricacies, thus limiting the range of considered options.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Entman’s four types of framing—problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation—offer a comprehensive framework for understanding how communication shapes public perception. Each function plays a distinct yet interconnected role in constructing narratives that influence how issues are understood, who is held responsible, how they are morally judged, and what solutions are proposed. While this model provides valuable insights into media influence, it also highlights potential limitations, such as the risk of oversimplification or bias in framing choices. Generally, Entman’s framework remains a cornerstone in communication studies, offering students and scholars a structured approach to analysing media texts. Its implications extend to various domains, including political communication and public policy, underscoring the power of framing in shaping societal discourse and decision-making processes.
References
- Entman, R. M. (1993) Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), pp. 51-58.
