Framing, Rolling Stone, and the Boston Bomber

According to Robert Entman, to frame "is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described." So in other words, when something is framed a certain way it defines a problem, diagnoses a cause, makes moral judgements, and offers suggestions to remedy the problem.

Framing in journalism can be intentional or unintentional but it is most likely intentional. For example when Rolling Stone magazine put the Boston Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

Many people were outraged by this decision, and stores even refused to carry the issue. The media had been overflowing with images of victims who had been hurt in the blast, and they were graphic. This was a huge upset as any act of terrorism would be, across the nation, so people said that Rolling Stone was glorifying the bomber and the act.

It may seem as though it was a terrible decision for the editors to make. Why would they do that, when they could focus on the victims instead? But the editors did this purposefully. As I have mentioned in previous posts, there is always a conversation in the newsroom about what is covered and how.

The editors of Rolling Stone wanted to put Jahar on the cover because he is "young and in the same age group as many of [their] readers," which "makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens." They wanted to point out that this could have been anyone.

In the article  the writer had interviews from those who knew him as well as outlining his arrest. His friends said he was 'just a normal American kid," and his high school wrestling coach who 'loved [him] like a son' was completely shocked.  Multiple interviews from friends framed him as a kind, normal kid who was a Muslim but also American.

The framed problem in this article is that Jahar committed this act. The cause is that he was probably influenced by his older brother who had recently found religion, become passionate about it, and completely changed his life. Jahar had also recently started college and was having issues of fitting in, as well as coping with his parent's divorce, so he was perhaps trying to find himself like his brother had.

The moral evaluation in this article is that the writer wants us to understand more about where Jahar came from and what could have influenced him. Readers can understand from his friends that he seemed like a normal kid but you never really know what someone is thinking. Don't get me wrong, the article in no way glorifies him or makes him out as a hero at all. The writer just wants us to see that it wasn't a simple story. As far as remedies for the problem, there aren't really any offered. The author just points out from professional interviews about how isolation can affect someone.

This is a good example of the media purposefully using framing to get a point across. The author took a different angle on the story in order to show that you never know what's going on with someone, and anyone can commit such violent acts.