Tutt, Bryan. 2009. “Frames in reports and in reporting: How framing affects global information in the intergovernmental panel on climate change’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’ and in documents written about the report.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 39 (1): 43-55
The article, “Frames in reports and in reporting: How framing affects global information in the intergovernmental panel on climate change’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’ and in documents written about the report,” appeared in a 2009 edition of the Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. In it, Bryan Tutt analyzes how technical communicators are prone to use to framing to give information context within their reports, and how and journalists do the same in their corresponding coverage. Rhetorical devices such as metaphor can persuade readers, but framing, a tactic for text organization, might go undetected by less savvy readers.
Tutt discusses the techniques and effects of framing by analyzing a technical report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the “Summary for Policymakers,” along with related news articles and oil industry press releases. He aims to reveal how the same information can be framed differently in documents from separate sources as a way to advance agendas. He asks three questions: What techniques are used to frame each document? How does framing support other rhetorical devices used by the writers? And finally, how does framing the source document affect information picked up by content written about the report?
The author uses Kuypers’s “four reportorial practices of sandwiching anti-position statements between pro-position statements, lopsided use of sources, labeling, and omission of alternate facts. Tutt chooses intertextual frame analysis for his approach. He appropriates Aristotle’s logos, ethos, and pathos when they relate to structure and style elements used for framing. He also acknowledges that the scientific world view forms part of the frame for science writing (46-47).
In his analysis, Tutt determines the report uses an understated form of language, especially for issues that would likely cause human suffering. For example, in its discussion of how climate change will affect agriculture in Africa, powerful words like “famine” or “starvation” are omitted while descriptions like “access to food” being “compromised” and “food security” being “adversely affected” are included. Although human suffering is not highlighted in the report, it is in there. The words “death” and “mortality” each appear five times (48).
Next, Tutt discusses dual framing in both a subdued factual report and a call to action. This is because several writers contributed multiple agendas. A reporter for the Associated Press (AP) points out that the original document included “hundreds of millions” of potential flood victims, while the finished report instead uses “many millions.” Plus, an important mention of “up to 120 million people” potentially starving was withheld. The AP writer’s framing casts scientists as data-driven heroes and diplomats as either weak or evil (48-49). Tutt also reviews a New York Times article that frames the information as irrefutable evidence justifying a call to action. In it, scientists are portrayed as brilliant experts while diplomats’ mission is to dilute the facts (49-50). Finally, a BBC News item is framed as fact-based reporting, but without comments from skeptics. While Tutt contends that this BBC story is lopsided, one must also consider the notion of false balance, wherein such information is presented with balance between opposing points of view, yet the arguments on one side are way out of proportion to the other side (51). In other words, since an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global climate change is going to be a big problem in the coming decades, why give voice to skeptics often employed or funded by energy companies and trained in a different science, such as physics or geology? If I were to report that the earth is round, there might be people who continue to believe it is flat, but it would be ridiculous to include those perspectives.
Lastly, Tutt takes on press releases from Exxon Mobile and ConocoPhillips. Of course, framing presents their organizations in the most favorable light, underscoring commitments to environmental stewardship while omitting any mentions of global climate change. He also discusses the framing of a Houston Chronicle story covering the report, but it spends much more soace on the oil industry’s perspective—not surprising, considering that the newspaper serves a city with deep roots in the oil and gas industries.
Tutt concludes that the government report, which was written by committee, doesn’t use a consistent frame, Instead, it was a “hybrid between a bureaucratic report and a call to action” (53). His framing analysis reveals that writers of these and associated documents create frames by being selective with facts, strategically placing information, and using intertextual references. Ultimately, technical communicators (as well as other professional communicators) learn different framing techniques to present information in a desirable context. Going forward, it will be useful to turn a critical eye toward textual framing to consider the writer’s underlying intentions.
Tutt discusses the techniques and effects of framing by analyzing a technical report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the “Summary for Policymakers,” along with related news articles and oil industry press releases. He aims to reveal how the same information can be framed differently in documents from separate sources as a way to advance agendas. He asks three questions: What techniques are used to frame each document? How does framing support other rhetorical devices used by the writers? And finally, how does framing the source document affect information picked up by content written about the report?
The author uses Kuypers’s “four reportorial practices of sandwiching anti-position statements between pro-position statements, lopsided use of sources, labeling, and omission of alternate facts. Tutt chooses intertextual frame analysis for his approach. He appropriates Aristotle’s logos, ethos, and pathos when they relate to structure and style elements used for framing. He also acknowledges that the scientific world view forms part of the frame for science writing (46-47).
In his analysis, Tutt determines the report uses an understated form of language, especially for issues that would likely cause human suffering. For example, in its discussion of how climate change will affect agriculture in Africa, powerful words like “famine” or “starvation” are omitted while descriptions like “access to food” being “compromised” and “food security” being “adversely affected” are included. Although human suffering is not highlighted in the report, it is in there. The words “death” and “mortality” each appear five times (48).
Next, Tutt discusses dual framing in both a subdued factual report and a call to action. This is because several writers contributed multiple agendas. A reporter for the Associated Press (AP) points out that the original document included “hundreds of millions” of potential flood victims, while the finished report instead uses “many millions.” Plus, an important mention of “up to 120 million people” potentially starving was withheld. The AP writer’s framing casts scientists as data-driven heroes and diplomats as either weak or evil (48-49). Tutt also reviews a New York Times article that frames the information as irrefutable evidence justifying a call to action. In it, scientists are portrayed as brilliant experts while diplomats’ mission is to dilute the facts (49-50). Finally, a BBC News item is framed as fact-based reporting, but without comments from skeptics. While Tutt contends that this BBC story is lopsided, one must also consider the notion of false balance, wherein such information is presented with balance between opposing points of view, yet the arguments on one side are way out of proportion to the other side (51). In other words, since an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global climate change is going to be a big problem in the coming decades, why give voice to skeptics often employed or funded by energy companies and trained in a different science, such as physics or geology? If I were to report that the earth is round, there might be people who continue to believe it is flat, but it would be ridiculous to include those perspectives.
Lastly, Tutt takes on press releases from Exxon Mobile and ConocoPhillips. Of course, framing presents their organizations in the most favorable light, underscoring commitments to environmental stewardship while omitting any mentions of global climate change. He also discusses the framing of a Houston Chronicle story covering the report, but it spends much more soace on the oil industry’s perspective—not surprising, considering that the newspaper serves a city with deep roots in the oil and gas industries.
Tutt concludes that the government report, which was written by committee, doesn’t use a consistent frame, Instead, it was a “hybrid between a bureaucratic report and a call to action” (53). His framing analysis reveals that writers of these and associated documents create frames by being selective with facts, strategically placing information, and using intertextual references. Ultimately, technical communicators (as well as other professional communicators) learn different framing techniques to present information in a desirable context. Going forward, it will be useful to turn a critical eye toward textual framing to consider the writer’s underlying intentions.
