Advanced techniques are used by those in power to manage public perceptions, shape political discourse, and exploit psychological tendencies to advance otherwise unpopular agendas. Part of our mission at Cognitive Policy Works is to demonstrate how the political mind operates so that grassroots activists and non-profit managers can protect themselves against these deceptive practices.
A major issue in politics today is the problem of trust. In our media saturated world, we are constantly bombarded with misleading information that undermines our confidence in democratic institutions. We need new tools to address this problem – tools that complement the excellent work of media watchdogs, bloggers, and advocates with relevant expertise who call out the inconsistencies and forgeries of the mainstream media.
Our contributions will be shaped by insights into the concerns that motivate different groups of people, the worldviews that filter our perceptions of the world, and the lived experiences that shape how people make sense of the information around them. Over the next few months, we will start to share our insights in the form of trainings, educational materials, and web media.
You can help shape this process.
We’re looking to the progressive community for guidance on where to start. Should we focus on teaching frame analysis as a tool for de-constructing spin? Would it be helpful to have greater insights into the psychological processes that drive human behavior? Does a “big picture” perspective on social trends sound valuable for putting current events in context? Let us know. Post your thoughts in the comment thread here and let us know what you’d most like to see us doing with the unique combination of perspectives represented by our core team of innovative thinkers.
Best,
Joe Brewer
Founder, Cognitive Policy Works
Update
At Cognitive Policy Works we are developing a curriculum based on several foundational themes. One of these themes is Building Trust in Politics. Topics to be covered include:
- How to de-construct spin;
- Myth busting and the risk of accidentally reinforcing a lie;
- The psychology of false memories;
- How to manage the experience of knowing that you’ve been deceived.
We believe that skills like these are dangerous in the hands of the few – and liberating in the hands of the many.
Hi Patrick,
Great comments. I agree with you about the importance of historical context and economic powers (along with their motives) in developing effective strategies for social change.
I’ll think carefully about the role of historical context in the cultivation of new frames within an existing social order. We might need to expand our capacities when this comes up for specific issues to include thoughtful people (like yourself) who have valuable insights into the historical context of strategic issues.
Thanks for sharing!
Joe
An important discussion.
My 2 cents:
Without a solid understanding of relevant historical context, as well as the economic interests shaping the frames, understanding the media is next-to impossible.
I write from Venezuela, where we are witnessing (over the last few years) a masterful effort on the part of US and international corporate media to shape US public opinion on this country.
Without understanding history or economic interests at play, it is impossible to ask the right questions about US corporate media content. Without these two elements we will never fully understand the frames shaping our thoughts.
Decontextualizing and removing an official enemy from its surrounding history (be that “enemy” a welfare mom, a state health care plan, or a foreign country) is a time tested approach to shifting public opinion.
In addition, blurring lines of class and the economic interests at play (done so well by Reaganomics… if the wealthy do well we all do well, right?) bring us to tie our hopes to the fortunes of the global economy and its many actors, as nearly any “news” program invites us to do.
In the case of Venezuela, for example, is vital to know that in the last 200 years there is not one single example of a Latin American country that has deviated from US economic interests that has not been subjected to US-backed coups, invasions, blockades, assassinations, etc etc etc.
It is also crucial to know that not one of those US foreign policy adventures in the region would have been possible without media collaboration. The recipe is nearly identical, and the examples run into the hundreds.
Understanding both history and economic interests goes a long way to contextualize the frames in question.
Hi Rikard,
Great suggestions! We’re planning to develop resources of value to the citizen activist, and will want to be sure they are accessible and affordable to those who will benefit most from having them. Your idea of having a subscription feed is something we’re already considering. It offers access at a low monthly rate that individuals can afford, while ensuring that our new developments are delivered to the progressive community continuously on a month-to-month basis.
Thanks for the great suggestions. We’ll have resources to share with the world soon!
Best,
Joe
Hi Janine,
Great suggestion! I agree that we need to help clarify the short-comings of many standard assumptions, including the problematic nature of striving for objectivity in news reporting.
We definitely plan to offer insights into (a) what contested concepts are; (b) how to identify them; and (c) how competing “truths” of different contexts can be recognized and worked with effectively. The example Eric gave in the article you reference is an excellent example of how the purpose of the author shapes which “relevant truth” is more appropriate… in particular because both contexts present legitimate and accurate facts that lead to contradictory conclusions.
Thanks for the suggestion,
Joe
By the way, Release 2.0 is just an example of a quality product. It has nothing to do with framing or progressive politics.
I’d be really interested in methods and approaches for creating frames that counter/ reframe some problematic phenomenon and I need to analyze things first, to be able to reframe them. Hmm, so both frame analysis and frame construction would be meaningful. Oh and while we’re talking about spin. If there are ways to recognize strategic initiatives I’d be very interested in learning about it.
And I’d like to subscribe to a monthly report about this with some exercises (Release 2.0 http://radar.oreilly.com/r2/ is a bit long but has high quality perspectives).
I think it’s an important skill to be able to recognize spin, but I think it’s equally important to be able to see how well-meaning journalists consciously avoid spin, but because they are blind to their own use of frames, see their work as “objective.” This perpetuates the myth that news story can be told in terms of “just the facts” and that truth can be uncovered and explained without alternate explanation. (Campbell Brown’s “No Bias, No Bull” comes to mind.) This mindset ignores what we know about contested concepts and actually limits the scope of the ideas one conveys. It also means you might be using the other’s guy’s frame and never know it.
I think this is important because this mythical idea of objective reality is not just present in journalism, but in factual resources such as textbooks and encyclopedias. (Nicely addressed in this article by Eric Haas: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/wikipedia-white-washing-there-s-truth-in-facts-and-frames/view.html)
So while we can create a media without spin, we cannot have one without frames. And power over the frames we use gives us clarity over our communication. I’d like to see more examples like the ones presented in Eric Haas’ article that might help me recognize it in my daily life.
Thanks!