Sunday, June 07, 2026

Chapter 4 of How to Think: Recognizing Frames

In my Substack, I have been serializing a series on How to Think. The first three chapters were posted fully, starting with this one the full chapter is behind a paywall for my Substack subscribers. If you are an EoZ subscriber through PayPal or Patreon, I can give you access to my full Substack articles, let me know.

Recognizing Frames

Chapter 4 of How to Think

In late 1976, New York City residents grew increasingly concerned over a crime wave against the elderly. Three daily newspapers and five local television stations reported a surge of violence — muggings, robberies, assaults — targeting senior citizens. The coverage ran for approximately seven weeks, eventually reaching national outlets. Advocacy organizations mobilized to deal with the problem. Legislators discussed how to protect the elderly.

There was only one problem. The crime wave did not exist.

A sociologist named Mark Fishman, who was studying newsrooms at the time, noticed that while every story reported was accurate, there was no increase in crimes against seniors at all. He compared the coverage to the actual NYPD statistics and found that the numbers did not support the claimed surge. Some categories of crime against elderly victims were the same as in previous year, and others were actually decreasing. The spike was in the coverage, not in the crime.

Here’s what happened: One station ran a story on an elderly victim. Because it performed well, editors at competing outlets looked for similar incidents — and found them, because there will always be crimes against the elderly (and every other demographic) every day in a city of eight million people. As more stations and papers picked up the theme, the theme became self-reinforcing: an incident that would previously have been a brief item on an inside page became front-page news because it fit the established wave. Each individual story was accurate but the pattern was a fiction. The distortion was a byproduct of incentive structures and competitive news dynamics in the days before algorithms.The fiction was constructed entirely from true facts, selected and arranged inside a frame.

The frame was the story, not the individual incidents.But it is difficult to notice the frame.

This is the story of how frames work. In this case, it was not deliberate. But fifty years later, framing stories has become an industry in itself, and nowadays it is deliberate. Framing with an agenda is much more serious.

The Frame Is Always There

The frame is the invisible architecture of the argument. By the time you are evaluating claim a frame has already limited how you are to think about it. The frame helps determine what question you think you are answering, what comparisons feel natural, who the sympathetic parties are, and what a reasonable response would look like. Most people spend their analytical energy evaluating what sits inside the frame. This chapter is about the frame itself.

In the summer of 2020, there were many protests for racial justice after the George Floyd incident.Imagine two news outlets covering a (real) study on the protests:

About 93% of racial justice protests in the US have been peaceful, a new report finds

Report: Over 15 violent riots erupt every week in the US

Both those headlines are true (the first is actually how CNN reported on the study.) The report counted 10,200 protests of which 220 were violent - gunfire, arson, vandalism, clashes with police. Each news story could be completely accurate, and the only difference is the frame. And in each case, the frame is what is manipulating you, not the story itself.

This is not a trick reserved for propagandists. Every journalist frames every story, consciously or not. Every witness frames their account, usually without noticing. The frame is not an impurity in the argument — it is the water the argument swims in. The question is not whether you are receiving information inside a frame. You always are. The question is whether you can recognize the frame to begin with.

Manufactured Frames: The Word Engineers

There is an entire profession devoted to manufacturing frames, and it operates in the open.

Frank Luntz is its most candid practitioner. A Republican political consultant, Luntz built his career on a single insight: the same policy, described in different language, produces measurably different public responses — and the difference is large enough to change election outcomes and legislative votes. He ran focus groups, tested language, and handed politicians the words that would win.

His most famous contribution is the renaming of the estate tax as the "death tax." The estate tax, as it existed in the 1990s, applied to roughly the wealthiest two percent of Americans at death — not a constituency that generates populist sympathy. "Estate" sounds like old money; it implies something rarefied and distant. "Death" is universal. Everyone dies. Nobody wants to be taxed at death. Luntz's own focus groups demonstrated something remarkable: people would simultaneously oppose a "death tax" and support an "estate tax," unaware they were describing the same thing.Luntz didn’t change the policy, just the frame. Within years, legislation had significantly reduced what had been known as the estate tax and temporarily eliminated it entirely — driven in no small part by polling data showing overwhelming opposition to the “death tax” among people who would never pay it.

Luntz applied the same method everywhere he could. He promoted the terminology "climate change" instead of "global warming" — the former sounds gradual and natural, the latter carries connotations of crisis and urgency. He used "government takeover" instead of "health care reform."

Luntz also would choose either "Illegal alien" or "undocumented immigrant," depending on which side of the immigration debate one were paying Luntz to help. He worked both sides of the immigration terminology war at different times. He was engineering emotional responses, and he would engineer them in whichever direction the client required. Framing was the game, not impartiality.

Let’s look closer at the different examples of immigration terminology. "Illegal alien" is the statutory term — it appears in federal law and Supreme Court opinions. Its advocates argue it is precise: the person has violated immigration law, the word "illegal" names that fact, the word "alien" is the legal designation. Its opponents argue that calling a person "illegal" defines their entire existence by a legal status, rather than naming the act, and that "alien" is dehumanizing. They prefer "undocumented immigrant," which centers the administrative circumstance rather than the legal violation. "Undocumented" is accurate in one sense — many people in this category do lack documentation — but it omits that the absence of documentation is itself the consequence of an illegal act, which is why critics call it a euphemism. Both camps chose their terms to produce a particular emotional response in listeners and to preload the policy conclusion. The person who has absorbed "illegal alien" is already being asked to think about law enforcement and border security. The person who has absorbed "undocumented immigrant" is already being asked to think about bureaucratic obstacles and human vulnerability. By the time either person reaches the policy question, the frame has done substantial work.

Abortion terminology does the same thing with even greater efficiency. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both names chosen by their movements that hold those positions, and both are examples of pure frame engineering. Nobody is "anti-life." Nobody is "anti-choice." Each label claims the universally desirable value and assigns it to one side, making the other side's position implicitly the negation of something good. The underlying disagreement — about when personhood begins, how to weigh competing rights, what the law should say — is real and serious. The label names for it were engineered to avoid engaging any of that, and to win the framing contest before the argument starts. Opinion polling on abortion shifts measurably depending on whether survey questions use "pro-life," "anti-abortion," "pro-choice," or "pro-abortion-rights" as the descriptor. The substance of the question is identical. The frame moves the answers.

"Right to work" is an older and more instructive example because the engineering is so transparent in retrospect. The term was coined in 1941 by a Dallas newspaper editorial writer and weaponized by a political organizer named Vance Muse, who wanted to weaken labor unions in the South. Laws prohibiting mandatory union membership — which is what "right to work" actually describes — sound, under that name, like a protection of individual liberty. A worker has the right to work without being forced to join an organization. Martin Luther King Jr. understood what the frame was doing and named it: the law's actual purpose was to destroy collective bargaining by allowing workers to receive union benefits without paying union dues, undermining the financial base of unions without formally outlawing them. "Right to work," as King put it, was "a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights." The frame had converted a policy designed to weaken workers' collective power into a protection of individual freedom — and it worked, passing in fourteen states within six years of the term's invention.

The military euphemism factory operates on the same principle but with higher stakes. "Collateral damage" entered American military vocabulary during the Gulf War as the standard term for civilian casualties. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" was the Bush administration's term for what the relevant law defines as torture. "Extraordinary rendition" was the term for kidnapping terror suspects and delivering them to other countries for interrogation. "Kinetic military action" was the Obama administration's term for a military campaign in Libya, used specifically to avoid the legal and political implications of calling it a war. Each of these phrases describes something real in language chosen to prevent the listener from forming a mental picture of what is actually happening. Civilian deaths, torture, kidnapping, and war are things people have visceral reactions to. Yet people can process "collateral damage," "enhanced interrogation," "extraordinary rendition," and "kinetic military action" without such a reaction. The engineering is deliberate, documented in government communications, and directed not at enemies but at the home population whose support the government needed to maintain.

George Orwell named this project in 1946: "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." He was writing about totalitarianism, but the technique has proven equally useful in democracies, where maintaining public support requires managing what the public will think about.

A website called Communicating Palestine, published by a pro-Palestinian advocacy organization and aimed at journalists, academics, activists, and policymakers, describes its framing process explicitly. Most framing guides of this kind circulate internally; this one is public and even highlights the phrase “Framing Palestine” which makes it a rare opportunity to examine the mechanism without having to infer it.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!