"Benevolent act"A couple of days ago, the KMT presidential candidate Ying-jeou Ma presented the nation's young man a gift. He said, if he is elected, the government will offer those young newly-wed two million dollars as home loans without interest for two years.
Seems a pretty good policy, right?
"Punishment for being single"
The DPP candidate, Frank Hsieh, however, considered this commitment malignant to single people.
Here the same issue is portrayed differently by the two candidates. One deemed it as positive and good will, whereas the other thought of it as negative. This is similar to the abortion issue in the United States that pit "right of choice" against "right of life."
The two frames again invoked very different images and may create different public climate. Needless to say that those who see it as a punishment will be against the policy, or even the candidate, while those think of it as benevolence will react the other way around. Which frame people may adopt rests in their demographic background, social economic status, social experience, and so on. Therefore, many scholars suggest that frames live a double life: one lives in the media and political world, with the other residing in people's mind. Frames work most effectively when these two aspects match!
From this example, we can see that political actors can "package" an issue strategically, arouse different emotions from people, and distinguish supporters from non-supporters. Based on the framing effect, it is evident that what is important is not what you say, it is how you say it! When a candidate or a politician can find a "term" or "frame" acceptable to most of the people, chances are that (s)he will garner their support.
No comments:
Post a Comment