View this email in your browser

Hello friends,

As the tragedy of the Russian war on Ukraine continues, we’ll take a deeper look at recent coverage in today’s newsletter. But first, a little transparency: My media diet is biased towards western and particularly U.S. media and I only speak English fluently, which limits the news and perspectives coming across my feeds. I’m always seeking to broaden my point of view, but it’s an admitted limitation to this newsletter. Also, I am not an expert on foreign policy or the particular dynamics between Russia and Ukraine and won’t pretend to be.

What my skill set does include, however, is analyzing the language and framing choices of major media outlets and how those may impact audiences. You’ll continue to find guidance on those topics here. But, I also think one of my skills is knowing when to be quiet. So, today’s newsletter is largely an amplification of voices speaking and writing about war coverage and how it can be improved. To do that I’ve messed with our usual flow and layout a bit; I hope you’ll forgive me.

Also, there are many topics I could have focused on this week. On Ukraine alone, the “localization” of foreign wars and U.S.-centric coverage, mis- and disinformation and tech giants, the hypocrisy of how western media uses the word “oligarch” and more — each of these could take up many newsletters. For this week at least I focused mostly on recent coverage that saw journalists use racist remarks and comparisons to describe the Russian invasion, because there’s plenty to unpack there. I hope to address the topics above and others in coming weeks, though we never know what the future may hold.

As always, I welcome your questions, feedback, and suggestions. Just find us on Twitter or reply to this email.

Stay safe,
Aubrey Nagle
Reframe editor

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

A Link to Make You Think 🤔

Our must-read of the week.

The racial bias in western media’s Ukraine coverage is shameful

The past week or so has seen far too many journalists make racist comments when reporting on Ukraine and those impacted by further Russian invasion. Not only do these comments advance white supremacy, but they also illustrate a double standard in how wars are covered in western media depending on who is doing the invading and what the victims look like. Nadine White explains these recent examples and their consequences at the Independent, making her a must-read today.

Further reading:

• Call Out Bigotry in Reporting on the Ukraine Invasion by Issac J. Bailey at Nieman Reports

• ‘They seem so like us’: In depicting Ukraine’s plight, some in media use offensive comparisons by Sarah Ellison and Travis M. Andrews at the Washington Post

• For Ukraine — and all news coverage — journalists need to pay attention to word choices by Doris Truong at Poynter

Several Good Tweets 🐥

It’s just what it sounds like: some great Tweets we think everyone should see!

How Russia’s invasion is framed in western media in comparison to other wars is an important and nuanced discussion we must have. So, for this week, we’re sharing several points of view on this conversation.

First and foremost, as Abdallah Fayyad of the Boston Globe illustrates, this conversation isn’t a zero-sum game. Empathy is not a pie, where a bigger slice here means a smaller slice there.

Stereotypes like comedian Mohanad Elshieky describes come from many places, news media included. “War is the culture of the aggressor” is the key here.

Journalist Jacky Kemigisa wrote an enthusiastic thread on how coverage of Ukraine looks different than that of other recent wars. This tweet raises a great question: whose fighting is overtly supported and whose is not?

Finally, to be U.S.-centric for a second: journalist Katelyn Burns brings up another apt comparison for the double standard of coverage.

Headline Check ✅

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

Why does this CNN headline make Biden’s February 24 address sound like the climactic scene of an old Western movie? Adding dramatic flourish to reporting on a literal war is wholly unnecessary. But as researcher Hussein Kesvani points out below, it’s part of a larger pattern of platforms spreading news that triggers high emotions for engagement.

Whether they’d admit it or not, news and content producers respond to that engagement by creating more emotion-laden content. Editors should avoid framing all war-related stories as spectacle, like the Guardian did with their headline on the same speech below.

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 ideas and frameworks might help journalists and writers understand the framings we’ve seen above as they’re happening and subvert them?

Answer: Anyone writing for the public should have a solid understanding of framing — how a problem is defined, and who is responsible for creating and solving it — and what it looks like in the wild. Learning how this works at different levels, as the writers below illustrate, can help journalists see how their work defines the power dynamics of conflict.

• Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? by Judith Butler: You didn’t hear it from me, but there’s a PDF of this online. If you read anything today, read pages 36-44.

• Framing Responsibility for Political Issues: The Case of Poverty by Shanto Iyengar: This study shows how news frames impact peoples’ perception of community issues.

• “Looting” or “finding”? By Aaron Kinney: A quick read, this article explores a memorable bit of racist framing of Hurricane Katrina coverage.

• How Language is Deployed as a Weapon of War by Daniel King: This is a concise yet deep dive into how politicians use language to support their ends in wartime.

• Journalism failed in Afghanistan, Too by Peter W. Klein: Another quick read, this touches on the differences in “episodic” vs. “thematic” coverage of war.