There are a few keys to understanding about how social problems can be 'framed.' First, if you want to know who's doing the 'framing,' think about who benefits from the social problem. This doesn't always work, but for many social problems (e.g., the banking crisis, global warming), it does. Second, think about the concept of 'framing.' If you were going to 'frame' a picture and put it on your wall, say of your high school reunion, you pretty much have whatever space is inside the frame. If the date that stood you up on prom can be photoshopped out of it, you can take him/her out of the frame. Maybe that nasty Assistant Principal who now is a part-time security guard at a payday loan kiosk. So groups with money and power and influence, especially when they can gain access to the mainstream commercial media, can use those advantages to get more messages out to the public, and 'spin' or 'frame' the messages in a way that leave some parts out, while emphasizing others. Third, just to re-emphasize, to understand who is attempting to frame an issue in a certain way, think about who has access to the media. Who has a huge advertising budget? Who can hire 'experts' to appear on the evning news? Who can get news coverage by associating themselves with celebrities? Who can scare the public the most (e.g., think about the color-coded 'terror alerts' that were used by the Bush/Cheney Administration to heighten people's fear of a 'war on terror,' and whether they might have served as distractions from other news stories the White House wanted to go away)? Media themselves, especially television, are also obviously important actors in how social problems are presented to the public.

• Poverty--This is a classic problem where blame gets pointed in different directions, depending on your own philosophy and who you're listening to. Poor people are often characterized as lazy and unmotivated, undeserving of public assistance, people who made 'bad choices' and should suffer the consequences--the individual explanation of poverty--that it is a problem of individuals. This is often how commercial news media portray poverty--rarely do they discuss the successes of welfare in keeping people out of poverty--much more often it is the story of the exception, the individual who abused the system. Ronald Reagan used a story about the 'welfare queen' in the 1980s to stifle debate on poverty and make it appear that many people on welfare were abusing the system (there was no 'welfare queen,' by the way--Reagan made the story up). The other 'framing' you will see is more structural, and supported by an examination of people's socioeconomic chances. The table below suggests something else going on, a lack of opportunity to those less well-off, a low risk of the Paris Hiltons of the world ever falling from privilege. If you think about who advertisers are trying to reach on telvision, though--mostly affluent audiences with money to spend on luxury goods--it stands to reason that the structural 'framing' may not be so good for ratings or advertising revenue, might instead make people feel guilty or angry, and push for different kinds of policies that would raise taxes, for instance.

• Divorce--This one doesn't work quite as well, but if you think about divorce and how it's framed by the media, there is clearly still a stigma attached. In most movies, the hero, if he (and it's usually a he ...) has no spouse, is widowed, not divorced. Divorced women are often portrayed either as bitter or in a sexual way. There is still a stigma attached to divorce, though it is changing, and in fact, only half the families in the US are of the typical two parent-heterosexual 2.2 children variety.
• The banking crisis--The financial industry pours millions into political campaigns, and into lobbying of politicians seeking policies favorable to their interests--policies that either increase their income potential, or decrease chances of reducing income (e.g., stricter regulation). They are also heavy advertisers on commercial media. Financial News Networks may suffer from 'source filtering' because so much of their advertising comes from the financial services industry, they're hesitant to do anything that might harm investment, which would harm their own bottom line.