View this email in your browser

Hi friends,

Thanks for joining us for another issue. Today we’re mainly discussing coverage of U.S. politics and TV news, though clearly the war on Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic still rage. I strive each week to balance the many important events unfolding but, as all journalists know, it’s a constant struggle. I’m hoping the weekly switch-up of topics has helped organize some of this guidance for those reading but, as always, I welcome your suggestions and feedback. Simply reply to this email or find us on Twitter @ReframeNews.

Talk soon,
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.

Today’s Headline Check will make me sound like a broken record. What makes a good headline? Context, context, context.

The above headline, from the Washington Post, is accurate. But why does it matter that the call logs are missing? The average person reading this may not realize (or it might just not come to mind) that White House call logs are supposed to be complete and turned over to the National Archives for the public’s knowledge of what our president is doing and to whom they speak. Some audience members aren’t old enough to remember the scandal that 18 minutes of missing audio recordings caused for President Nixon, an incident folks like Bob Woodward were quick to note in comparison. The significance may seem obvious to reporters and political obsessives, but our job as journalists is not to assume knowledge on behalf of our audiences.

The headline below, from the New York Times, is better because it quickly provides context and meaning. The gap in call logs — what we don’t know — matters because of what we do know: that on January 6, 2021 Trump was seeking help from Republican lawmakers to overturn the rightful election results while his supporters overtook the Capitol. Thus, a gap this large is rightfully concerning to those investigating any wrongdoing on behalf of the Trump administration. Connecting the dots this easily in a headline does a great service to busy audiences.

One Good Tweet 🐥

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

Charlie Warzel, contributing writer at the Atlantic, is referring to The Slap. (If you don’t know what I’m referring to...save yourself and just skip this section.) The ~discourse~ around this particular cultural event was, exactly as Warzel says, completely predictable. I don’t have the answers, but it’s worth considering why we — everyone who participates in internet-based or -led conversation — feel the need to play these roles. It can hardly be described as true connection or even discussion and it’s rarely productive in the sense that it moves us closer to solutions to our collective problems. But it does seem to scratch an itch. If you want to probe further into your own place in this cycle, I suggest Warzel’s newsletter from this week that expands on his Tweet.

A Link to Make You Think 🤔

Our must-read of the week.

How a Philly-born brand of TV news harmed Black America.

As part of the Philadelphia Inquirer’s “A More Perfect Union” series, in which they examine “the roots of systemic racism in America through institutions founded in Philadelphia,” Layla A. Jones reports on the birth of Eyewitness and Action News. These brands may have began in Philly, but they spread their editorial sensibilities and aesthetics — and thus their racial stereotyping — to local stations across the U.S. Considering how many Americans still get the majority of their news via TV, we all should understand the history of this format and its negative impacts.

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 is the controversy over using the term “gaffe” to describe remarks by newsworthy figures?

Answer: Recently U.S. President Joe Biden made an unscripted remark at the end of a prepared speech (“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power" re: Vladimir Putin) that many reporters later referred to as a “gaffe.” But, as Columbia Journalism Review’s Jon Allsop has since duly noted, gaffes by public figures are often unduly focused on by the press due to an insider-y obsession with proper messaging.

The definition of “gaffe” is a foolish or embarrassing mistake or blunder. The label is often applied quite unevenly by the media depending on the public figure. Despite a plethora of outrageous remarks that left his mouth while in office and since, Donald Trump’s biggest “gaffes” were usually framed as normal or honest comments by the former president. Is that because such remarks hardly embarrassed Trump and often even resulted in buoyed support from his biggest fans? Perhaps.

Regardless, the use of the term relies on assumptions about the political implications and intent of a statement, rather than the content of the statement itself. If a mistake is of true consequence, it would not be simply a “gaffe” at all. And if it is just a “gaffe,” perhaps it doesn’t require as much attention as political reporters think.