DISCUSSING THE MORAL AND ETHICAL FUNDAMENTS OF FRAMING

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 1224 - 1247, 30.09.2022

M. Salih Güran Hüseyin Özarslan

https://doi.org/10.19145/e-gifder.1116850

Cited By: 1

Öz

Framing Theory defines the linguistic frames that are used in all kinds of communication texts, as discourse units that refer moral and ethical responsibility attributes to social actors. Whether be in mass communication contexts or interpersonal communication contexts, frames are used to define moral and ethical problems and consequences in all kinds of social interaction and also have powerful persuasion effects. The usage of framing itself by all social actors in their respective social-cultural contexts is subject to moral and ethical consideration. Framing exerts a critical function as basic moral and ethical judgements that are used in the social negotiations of the continuous reproduction of culture by the society. In the construction of social identities, frames serve as the main metaphor patterns used by all parties.
Various research on ethical problems of framing has been conducted as cases and using framing for the moral mapping of social-political interactions has also been studied on contexts. Both the ethical problems of framing and also the usage of framing as moralist communication not only come from the same basic concepts, their ultimate consequences are of moral weight from the “responsibility of the frame setter”. Thus, a comparing review of important research in both topics of study from a wider communication ethics approach will be a contribution to the advancement of Framing Theory.
As the conclusion of the analysis, it has been found that the development of various New Media forms with different institutional relations and different interaction dynamics and their interactions with the traditional media added new discussion dimensions and concepts for both media ethics and also framing research. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Framing Theory, Media frames, Journalism ethics, Communication ethics, Social media.

ÇERÇEVELEME ETİĞİ TARTIŞMALARINDA TEMEL KAVRAMLAR

Öz

Günümüz medya toplumunda kültürün yeniden üretilmesinde izler kitle çerçeveleri ile medya çerçeveleri tüm taraflarca etkileşimli olarak kullanılan ana metafor kalıplarıdır. Medya çerçeveleri, her türlü iletişim metninde, ama özellikle kitle iletişim araçlarında içeriği paketlemekte kullanılan retorik ve söylem araçları olarak, gerek güçlü ikna etkileri, gerekse toplumsal iletişimde sorumluluk atfetme, sorunu açıklama, çare önerme gibi ahlaki yargılama işlevlerini yerine getirmekte olduğundan, etik uygulama tartışmalarına konu olmaktadırlar. Çerçeveleme araştırmalarında, çerçeveleme eyleminin etik sorunları bağlamlar ve olaylar örneğinde tartışılırken, çerçevelemenin ahlaki tavır ve yargı belirten işlevleri de yine ayrı örnek olaylar bağlamında incelenmektedir. Ortak kavramsal temelin ötesinde, her iki yaklaşımın sonuçları da ahlakilik tartışmalarına konu olmaktadır.
Çerçeveleme ve etik ilişkilerini ele alan teorik ve kavramsal yaklaşımların, “çerçeveleme sorumluluğu” ve temel iletişim ahlakı temelli bir ortak tartışma paydasında karşılaştırılmaları çerçeveleme teorisinin kavramsal gelişimine katkı sağlayacaktır. Bu nedenle çerçevelemenin ahlaki ve etik sorunlarını farklı bağlamlarda ele almış önemli araştırmaları birlikte inceleyen bir literatür analizi gerekli görülmüştür.
Çalışma sonucunda, yeni medya devrimiyle birlikte, farklı yapısal ilişkilere ve farklı etkileşim dinamiklerine sahip sosyal medya formlarının gelişmesi ve bunların geleneksel medya yapılarıyla girdikleri ilişkiler temelinde hem medya etiği hem de çerçeveleme araştırmalarında farklı boyutların ve konseptlerin ortaya çıktığı görülmüştür

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çerçeveleme Teorisi, Medya çerçeveleri, Habercilik etiği, İletişim etiği, Sosyal medya.

Kaynakça

• Benford, R.D. – Snow, A.D. (2000). “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment”, Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 611–39
• Carragee, K.M. – Wim, R. (2004). “The Neglect of Power in Recent Framing Research”, Journal of Communication 54 (2): 214–233.
• Davis, D.K. – Kent, K. (2013) “Journalism Ethics in a Global Communication Era: The Framing Journalism Perspective”, China Media Research, 9(2): 71-82.
• Elliott, D. (1986). Responsible journalism. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage
• Entman, R. M. (1993). “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm”, Journal of Communication, 43 (4): 51-58
• Gamson, W. A. (1995). Constructing social protest, (ed) Social Movements and Culture, H. Johnson, - B. Klandermans, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Gamson, W.A. – Modigliani, A. (1989). “The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action”, Research in Political Sociology, 3: 137-177.
• Gamson, W.A. – Meyer, D.S. (1996). “Framing political opportunity”. McAdam Doug; John D. McCarthy; and Mayer Zald (ed), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Gee, J. P. (1999) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London, UK: Routledge.
• Goffmann, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
• Graham, J.- Haidt, J., Nosek, B.A. (2009). “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(5): 1029-1046.
• Haidt, J. - Joseph, C. (2004). “Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues”, Daedalus, 133(4): 55-66.
• Iyengar, S. (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA
• Kashima Y. – Perfors, A. – Ferdinand, V. – Pattenden, E. (2021). “Ideology, Communication and Polarization”, Philosophical Transactions B.
• Kwak, H – An, J – Jing, E – Ahn Y.Y (2021) “FrameAxis: Characterizing Microframe Bias and Intensity with Word Embedding”. PeerJ Comput Sci 7
• Lakoff, R. T. (1990) Talking Power: The Politics of Language. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books.
• Miller, P. M. – Fagley, N. S. (1991). “The Effects of Framing, Problem Variations, and Providing Rationale on Choice”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 517–522.
• Mooney, P. H. – Hunt, S. A. (1996). “A Repertoire of Interpretations: Master Frames and Ideological Continuity in U.S. Agrarian Mobilization”. Sociological Quarterly, 37(1): 177-197.
• Pan, Z. – Kosicki, G. M. (2001). “Framing as a Strategic Action in Public Deliberation”. S.D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, A. E. Grant (Ed.), Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of The Social World ( 35-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Rude, G. (1980). Ideology and Popular Protest. New York: Pantheon
• Scheufele, D. A. (1999). “Framing As a Theory of Media Effects”, Journal of Communication, 49(1): 103 – 122.
• Scheufele, B. (2006) “Frames, Schemata, and News Reporting” Communications, 31: 65-83
• Snow, D.A. – Benford, R.D. (2000). “Clarifying the Relationship between Framing and Ideology in the Study of Social Movements: A Comment on Oliver and Johnston”, Mobilization 5.
• Waluchow, J.W.(2003) The Dimensions of Ethics: An Introduction to Ethical Theory, Broadway Press.
• Van Gorp, B (2007). “The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back In”, Journal of Communication 57: 60–78.