View this email in your browser

Good afternoon, friends

Thanks again for joining us for another week of Freeze Frame. Today we’re talking about voting rights legislation, free COVID-19 tests, and the difference between “low-wage” and “low-income.” Whether here or elsewhere, I hope you learn something new today!

Aubrey Nagle
Reframe editor

Were you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up for Freeze Frame here.

Headline Check ✅

Here we analyze and reframe a news headline to demonstrate how this important real estate can be optimized for user experience.

Last night, the U.S. Senate failed to advance legislation to expand voting access and a change to Senate rules that would allow the legislation to pass failed by a 52-48 margin. All of the Republicans in the Senate, as well as two Democrats, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, made this happen. As with any big news event, it’s critical that reporting on this centers both those responsible for the action in question and who those actions will impact.

The headline above, from CNN, focuses the story on Democrats’ “defeat.” This plays into the politics-as-spectator-sport framing of legislation that erases the very real people who are impacted by the actions of Congress as if it’s all just a game. (Were Democrats defeated, or were voting rights for the entire country defeated?) It also obscures the Republican party’s prominent role in the outcome of last night’s debate by assigning no actor to the failed vote.

By contrast, this headline from CNBC, properly positions the actor and the act: Republicans blocked the voting rights bills alongside Sinema and Manchin. While it’s certainly relevant that two Democrats also blocked these bills, the emphasis should be on Senate Republicans. The press often takes for granted that all legislation should split along party lines and thus focuses on outliers who cross the aisle. In reality, any of the 50 Senate Republicans could have chosen to alter Senate rules to expand voting rights and chose not to, and in news coverage those 50 should receive as much responsibility for this outcome as Sinema and Manchin.

One Good Tweet 🐥

It’s just what it sounds like: a good Tweet that we think everyone should see!

When the U.S. government announced it would send out four free COVID-19 tests per household, many shared the sentiment that this was not the salve it purports to be. But physician Oni Blackstock explains the tension best by comparing the move to what could have been and reminding us all that equality and equity are not the same.

A Link to Make You Think 🤔

Our must-read of the week.

It’s time for a new contract between journalists and public contributors

Reporter Alex Murray, a broadcast journalist at the BBC, recently proposed a new standard for working with “public contributors,” or new subjects who aren’t public figures. He’s developed a list of 11 tenets to serve as a new social contract between journalists and their sources, from explaining publishing timelines to understanding informed consent. It’s a worthwhile read.

Questions with Answers 📫

Each week we’ll seek to answer a question facing the news industry about language, style, or framing — including answering questions sent to our inbox! Need advice? Send a note to reframe@resolvephilly.org and your question could be featured in a future issue.

Question: What’s the difference between “low-wage” and “low-income?”

Answer: The phrases “low-wage” and “low-income” are often used interchangeably when referring to workers, but I do believe there is a subtle important difference that journalists and word-nerds should pay attention to. Income refers to what someone receives, implying the recipient has the agency in what they’re receiving. Whoever’s on the other end of this give-and-take is absent in that phrase. (I.e., if your income is low, it’s on you.) A wage, however, refers to what someone is given by their employer; the employer has the agency. (I.e., if your wage is low, it’s on your employer.) So, in discussions about workers and how wages are affecting employment, economic security, and public health, using “low-wage” to focus on what employers are paying workers is likely more appropriate.