How Framing Distorts Journalism and Empowers Authoritarians

I recently appeared on Penn State's News Over Noise podcast to talk about the invisible power of framing and metaphor in shaping how we understand politics—and how journalism often gets it wrong.

For instance, the use of words like “muscular,” “bold,” or “regal” in describing political figures can subtly reshape reality, casting authoritarianism as strength and dismantling democratic norms as mere disruption.

In this conversation with media scholars Matt Jordan and Cory Barker, I talk about:

Why metaphors are far from neutral.
Why objectivity must encompass the frames we employ.
How journalists can and should strive for improvement in this area (and must read Dr. George Lakoff!).
Click below to listen, or to read the transcript:

Call me Daddy: The Danger of Strongman Framing - News Literacy Initiative

Some key points from the talk:

You can’t cover fascism or authoritarianism objectively as a journalist—because you don’t get to exist in the world where those things prevail.
The press has allowed authoritarians to normalize their abuses of the system. It’s not considered news that Republicans want a dictatorship—and that’s a problem.
If your definition of objectivity doesn’t also apply to the metaphors and frames you’re using, then you’re not being objective at all.
A reality TV star used Twitter to become president—twice. Clearly, something deeper is going on that facts and reason alone can’t fix.
Trump wants to be seen as strong, as "daddy." And far too often, the media gives him exactly what he wants.
The most dangerous framing is the subconscious kind—when journalists just repeat the language of power without questioning it.
All politics is moral. If journalists won’t talk about the moral stakes, they’re helping to hide them.”

Listen to the entire episode by clicking this link.

Connect with me on BlueSky.