Read on Twitter
So there was a group discussion that I was in recently that tried to talk about what was essentially framing:
Do we say Jackie Robinson was the first Major League Baseball player or do we say Jackie Robinson was the first black man white men allowed to play in the MLB?
Do we say Jackie Robinson was the first Major League Baseball player or do we say Jackie Robinson was the first black man white men allowed to play in the MLB?
Both statements are correct, but they both imply something inaccurate (if it's your first time hearing of Jackie Robinson at least).
A) J. Robinson was the first black man to play baseball that well.
B) White people did it out of some kind of growth/benevolence.
A) J. Robinson was the first black man to play baseball that well.
B) White people did it out of some kind of growth/benevolence.
Which means:
A) No black men were playing that well before
B) There was no pressure from civil rights activists for the removal of racial barriers in all industries.
A) No black men were playing that well before
B) There was no pressure from civil rights activists for the removal of racial barriers in all industries.
So the obvious solution is to not rely on headlines to learn history, you always need more context and story, but it did bring something to mind about media responsibility.
Message A was appropriate for young kinds of color, especially black ones.
Message B was appropriate for white people to understand that these barriers don't "just exist," they are created and enforced by their/our brethren.
Message B was appropriate for white people to understand that these barriers don't "just exist," they are created and enforced by their/our brethren.
Which means that if you are using mass media and potentially reaching both of these audiences at once, you need to address both angles.
It's not just an empowering story but a heartbreaking one about hatred holding power in recent history.
It's not just an empowering story but a heartbreaking one about hatred holding power in recent history.
I don't know how satisfied I am with this discussion so if anyone has any thoughts or further reading on how framing relates to our understanding of history and accountability, I'd love to learn more.
This thread was inspired by the Vanity Fair/Vogue Mexico covers that went around today.
How do we celebrate the women being highlighted without erasing the damage caused by those very publications up until just now?
How do we celebrate the women being highlighted without erasing the damage caused by those very publications up until just now?
I guess the framing should be:
"Exceptional person is finally allowed to shine because of centuries of activism finally forcing the hand of those who actively and purposely enforced harmful policies for ages."
It's wordy but the framing fits better, IMO.
"Exceptional person is finally allowed to shine because of centuries of activism finally forcing the hand of those who actively and purposely enforced harmful policies for ages."
It's wordy but the framing fits better, IMO.
but then we lose sight of the fact that those policies are not gone, they were just paused, and will start back up ASAP.
Anyway, it was food for thought.
Anyway, it was food for thought.
This thread is phenomenal and has a ton of history and imagery to review and contemplate: https://twitter.com/jmjafrx/status/1283154628784381955
