Framing is the new black

Steve at A New America responds here to my assertion that framing is not as clutch as some in the environmental movement think it is. I like his thoughts on how we need to rethink our overall approach. I also like his healthy fear and awareness of the right-wing master plan. But I still have problems with the framing craze. I'm not sure: are we trying to come up with new, better ways to talk about our core values? Or are we trying to better articulate what those core values are in the first place? This is not at all clear. My second, bigger problem is that the framing craze assumes that the general American public can't tell up from down without *special messaging*, which I know for a fact is untrue.

Maybe it would be better if people didn't think of us as "a movement" with "a message" at all. Then we wouldn't get this dynamic wherein reporters write, "the Bush administration did X. Environmentalists [emphasis mine] said X was a bad idea because of Y."

What they should ideally be writing is, "Fishermen said X was a bad idea because of Y. Mothers said X was a bad idea because of Z." And so on. We've set up an artificial division between "environmentalists" and other types of people. Our purpose is far broader than that of most special interest groups. Seriously, it's not difficult to explain this stuff. Just don't say the words "ecosystem" or "risk assessment," which make people's eyes glaze over, and you're all good. Say, "Doctors know that the smog from that power plant can cause asthma in your kids. We should make it emit less smog." Or, "We all know that it's hard to hunt grouse when the forests where they live have been cut. Let's make sure that this land gets protected so we can keep hunting grouse." Just say all the reasons why hurting the environment in a particular way is bad for the people you're talking to. Not hard.