“Business groups” / “red tape”

Aug 26, 2011 – We’ve seen this headline story many times before. It’s a template containing the elements of a complex frame:

1. Imposed EU regulations
2. Obstacles to ‘British’ business growth
3. Huge costs (for firms)
4. “Business groups” to the rescue

The “business groups” get a lot of space. The Telegraph quotes the British Chambers of Commerce and The Institute of Directors. The former says that unless the government “reduces this kind of red tape” it could “end up derailing the recovery”. The latter says the legislation has “very high costs for business” and is “wholly inappropriate in the current economic climate.”

Factual details may be misreported, or not. More important is the construct, the reinforcement of a particular cognitive script, and what it excludes.

Absent frames:
• PROTECTION (OF ‘ORDINARY HARD-WORKING PEOPLE’)
• WELL-BEING & HEALTH OF WORKERS-TAXPAYERS
• WIDER BENEFITS TO SOCIETY OF WORKER RIGHTS

“Mansion tax”

Aug 20, 2011 – A good example in the Telegraph of how negating a frame can reinforce a frame. The “mansion tax” has been pushed by the Lib Dems as a way to tax the rich (on properties worth more than £1m). The Telegraph puts forward Eric Pickles’ argument that this will affect “ordinary middle-class families” and “hard-working home owners” because of “high property prices in some areas”.

But the Telegraph’s headline, ‘NO TO THE MANSION TAX’, works against this argument. It might just as well be saying, “No to taxing the landed aristocracy”.

The number of people who glance at newspaper headlines (in the newsagent, supermarket, petrol station) far exceeds the number actually reading the newspaper copy. In this case, the Telegraph’s own headline works against the newspaper’s position.