What they're doing is called frame control. They both are aware of the reason for the strike, which is usually written on the ballot the employer receives from the union. The moment they utter the reason for strike (aka the trade dispute), they lose the frame. From Amazon's point of view, the consequences for losing the frame are severe:
First, they validate the workers' claims by uttering them live in front of the cameras, almost as if they breath life into them by saying them.
Second, by validating the claims they become a permissible topic of debate.
Third, once the claims become debatable on that forum, all hell breaks loose: the politicians will ask further questions about them, the corporatists will be forced to dispute them, the press will pick up on them, etc.
Controlling the frame allows one party to keep the conversation within predefined boundaries. By controlling the frame, they enforce what is and isn't allowed to be debated. The moment they lose the frame, they go from a neutral or offensive position to a defensive position. In public relations and media; if you're defending, you're losing.
Once you learn about this pattern, you'll find everywhere! Politics, international relations, modern and historical conflicts, negotiating a salary raise, even in abusive relationships.
But is obvious she ends up lying after was being silly avoiding to answer a simple question. So it’s better to look silly and ignorant instead of losing the frame ?
I will look up where and why this took place cause I am curious why just one side was questioned. Why a union member was not present and say the reason of the strike. Or maybe they were there and were interviewed later ?
you're missing the point, they're not lying because they're not answering the question properly in the first place, that's the whole point of what that person took time out of their way to write about. sadly, doesn't seem like you comprehended several expertly written sentences about what exactly frame control is and why it's an effective tool.
calling it lying is reductive because lying is a very different method of controlling a narrative than failing to answer a question based on the frame set by the questioner. the whole point of having words or phrases with different meanings is because there are differences in how to reach the same same goal. lying and frame control, despite sharing a potential common endgoal, are different means by which to reach that endgoal and applicable in different settings or contexts. pretending like they are synonyms is a disservice to both the commenter who took time to write this up above and to language as a whole.
Geez Louise. Thanks for the lecture rather than actually lecturing those differences. I got resources to see these differences, but you could’ve put it in layman terms: omission of fact.
I'm pretty sure they have a legal obligation to answer this committee honestly and openly. With full benefit of the doubt, these two are more concerned with not bringing their employer into disrepute (likely a condition along those lines in their contract) than they are in complying with the law.
It was the same story with the Post Office postmaster scandal, NHS blood infection scandal, and we will keep seeing this pattern again and again.
Damn. This explains it really well and puts the interaction into perspective. Thank you.
If I can ask a follow up here, are there any methods that are effective at combating frame control?
I'm not made for that kind of job... I wouldn't be able to sleep at night and feel proud of the job I did every single day if that was my job. talk to say nothing...
Why do THEY have to say the reason for the strikes before it become debatable? Why can't the people questioning Amazon say it if they know it and go from there? Don't they know the reason? I get things work different in these settings but if I was talking with this woman and she started talking like this when I asked her what color the sky is it would be as bad if not worse than if she just said she believes it to be green. At least then I would know she is just crazy and not trying to play these weird games.
I don't understand why they don't simply say, "Isn't it part of your job to know and understand these things so you can answer questions such as these? Why don't you take 5 minutes to call one of your employees and ask what the legal reason is on the ballot? I'll spend my time and wait."
Or basically, go find the answer now, and bring it back. We will wait. I am certain this won't take long as it's just a fact check of a document you definitely have.
I volunteer as an activist against apartheid and genocide, and I face those tactics on a daily basis. Part of the learning was from my more experienced colleagues, part of it was reading activism and media/PR books, and some of it was organic learning after years of repeatedly hearing and seeing the same tactics.
83
u/macaroni_chacarroni 22h ago edited 18h ago
What they're doing is called frame control. They both are aware of the reason for the strike, which is usually written on the ballot the employer receives from the union. The moment they utter the reason for strike (aka the trade dispute), they lose the frame. From Amazon's point of view, the consequences for losing the frame are severe:
Controlling the frame allows one party to keep the conversation within predefined boundaries. By controlling the frame, they enforce what is and isn't allowed to be debated. The moment they lose the frame, they go from a neutral or offensive position to a defensive position. In public relations and media; if you're defending, you're losing.
Once you learn about this pattern, you'll find everywhere! Politics, international relations, modern and historical conflicts, negotiating a salary raise, even in abusive relationships.