In this chapter I will conduct an extended analysis of framing as a strategic maneuver in a critical discussion. So far I have demonstrated, with small examples, how framing can be considered a strategic maneuver in each discussion stage. In this extended analysis, I will take a pragma-dialectical approach to the discussion as a whole, identifying and analysing the frames used. It is valuable to conduct an extended analysis of one critical discussion as it will enable an analysis of framing in consecutive discussion stages. This analysis will detail how framing works throughout the entirety of the discussion, and unveil how it interacts with strategic maneuvering on a wider level.
For this extended analysis, I chose to analyse a press release by the Dutch airline, KLM.
This was released in response to a scandal that occurred in 1999. The scandal developed when the Dutch airline killed 440 North-American banded ground squirrels. KLM were ordered to dispose of the squirrels by the national agency for the inspection of cattle and meat because the squirrels did not have the adequate health documents or packaging that were required. The sender in Beijing did not want to accept the squirrels and no country outside of Europe volunteered to receive them. KLM subsequently decided to dispose of the animals by putting them through a chopper, alive.
The press release, is a response to this scandal. The press release and a division of the discussion stages can be found in the appendix. I note here that the concluding stage in this discussion is largely implicit. However, this does not detract from the ability to analyse framing in all consecutive stages. There is just as much that can be said about an implicit discussion stage as can be said about its explicit counterparts.
I will begin this analysis by presenting the frame used in this discussion alongside an analytic overview of the standpoint and arguments. From here, I will analyse the strategic maneuvers by taking into consideration the following four parameters: the results that can be achieved through each maneuver, the routes that can be taken to achieve these results, the constraints imposed on the discourse by the institutional context, and the commitments of the parties defining the argumentative situation. The consideration of such parameters is advised by van Eemeren (2010) in order to best identify the strategic function of a strategic maneuver.
By conducting the analysis in this way, a thorough analysis of strategic maneuvering with a pragma-dialectical approach is ensured. When the strategic function of the strategic maneuvers is identified, I will continue the analysis by identifying the frame. Finally, with insights taken
from Entman’s framing locations, I will demonstrate how the frame is interconnected with the strategic maneuvers, how they share the same strategic function, and how the maneuvers further the realisation of the frame.
As has been demonstrated in Chapter 3.4, frames are constructed by a coordination of strategic maneuvers. In Chapter 3.4, I demonstrated how certain discussion strategies, identified by pragma-dialectical scholars, aid in the realisation of a frame. In this extended analysis, I will demonstrate how a frame can emerge from a set of coordinated strategic maneuvers and be part and parcel with a discussion strategy. In other words, I will demonstrate how a set of coordinated strategic maneuvers develops a frame.
4.1 Analytic Overview of the frame
I begin this analysis by presenting an analytic overview of the critical discussion. See below an overview of the standpoints and arguments advanced by KLM in their press release.
1. KLM was formally justified in killing the squirrels in that way
1.1 KLM was following orders given by the Departments of Agriculture, Environmental Management and Fishing (AEMF)
2. An ethical assessment mistake was made 2.1 An employee made an assessment mistake
In this critical discussion, KLM responds to the scandal by stating that the company was, first and foremost, formally justified in killing the squirrels. Secondly, KLM advance a second standpoint, claiming that an ethical assessment mistake was made. Both standpoints are followed by single arguments. As there are two standpoints, this is a multiple critical discussion. In addition, KLM are responding directly to the criticisms that the scandal incited.
This is therefore a multiple mixed discussion. With regards to the audience, it is comprised of all individuals who took offence to the killing of the squirrels. This includes the general public and various organisations that expressed anger at KLM’s actions.
In terms of the argument scheme, argument 1.1 has a symptomatic relation to the first standpoint. KLM argue that following orders implies being formally justified. In other words, following orders is a distinguishing mark of being formally justified. This argument is thus based on a systematic relation. Similarly, argument 2.1 is based on a causal relation. KLM admit that an assessment mistake was made because an employee made the mistake. In other
words, if an employee makes an assessment mistake it holds true that, in general, an assessment mistake was made. Having identified the components of this critical discussion, I turn now to the analysis of the strategic maneuvers in each strategic maneuver.
In this press release, KLM frame themselves as the innocent third party. This frame functions as an overarching discussion strategy throughout each discussion stage, culminating in the implicit conclusion that KLM are not at fault for the killing of the squirrels, hence they do not belong on either side of the discussion. In the analysis of each discussion stage, it becomes clear how this frame is being developed.
4.2 Strategic maneuvers and framing in the confrontation stage
In this sub-chapter I will analyse the strategic maneuvers, and the framing that occurs in the confrontation stage. There are only two lines in the press release that compose the confrontation stage. Lines 2 and 3 present both standpoints in one concise sentence. The press release writes that ‘KLM has acted in a way that is formally justified, but admits that an ethical assessment mistake was made’ (lines 2-3). As noted, this sentence neatly expresses both standpoints. The first, that KLM was formally justified in their actions, the second that an ethical mistake was made.
To begin I will focus on the first standpoint. KLM select from the topical potential and advance the standpoint that the company is formally justified. The protagonist has selected this standpoint as it results in the manipulation of the difference of opinion. This is achieved by the presentational device, dissociation. Dissociation is an argument scheme that was identified by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969). In dissociation, “the speaker splits up the notion considered by the audience to form a unitary concept into two new notions” (van Rees;
Houtlosser and van Eemeren, 2006, p. 473). This can be effective in a critical discussion because it highlights the notion that is the most advantageous to the protagonist. In this instance, the protagonist has selected from the topical potential and chosen to advance the standpoint that the company is formally justified in their actions. Here, the protagonist has made a dissociation between being justified and being formally justified. The difference of opinion is now transformed as KLM have committed the antagonist to the opposing standpoint.
It now appears that the antagonist has advanced the standpoint that KLM is not formally justified in their actions. This is exceptionally strategic as KLM have positioned themselves to best support their standpoint and defend their actions in the face of the antagonists’ new
accusation. By dissociating the meaning of formally justified from justified, KLM are able to confidently advance arguments that will support their standpoint. This is to the detriment of the antagonist.
With regards to the second standpoint, there are two elements at play, an admission and an appropriation of blame. In the second standpoint, the protagonist admits that an ethical assessment mistake was made. By consulting the constraints that are imposed upon the protagonist, it becomes clear how this argumentative move has maneuverered around its dialectical preconditions and emerged as an effective standpoint. The institutional point of a press release as a direct response to a scandal is to repair the protagonist’s image. In order to do so, there is a certain expectation on behalf of the audience to address the mistakes that were made, and to some extent apologise for such mistakes. However, in order to repair the company’s image, the protagonist must do this in an argumentatively effective way. In this specific instance, KLM recognise that they must address the mistake, being that the squirrels were killed in an abhorrently inhumane manner. However, KLM also recognise that they need to manipulate this admission in order to make it manageable and attempt to diminish the difference of opinion. As a result, KLM select from the topical potential and advance the standpoint that an ‘ethical assessment mistake was made’. In doing so, they fulfil the expectation and admit to a mistake, adapting to audience demand.
The second element at play in this strategic maneuver is an appropriation of blame. In their admission, the protagonist specifies that an ‘ethical’ assessment mistake was made. This becomes significant later in the discussion, in the argumentation stage, when the protagonist claims that the order to destroy the animals “in this form and without feasible alternatives was unethical” (lines 14-15). Thus, by advancing this argument in support of the standpoint, KLM are admitting to a mistake but appropriating the blame of this mistake to the AEMF. The result of this maneuver culminates in an adaption to audience demand as the protagonist has admitted to wrong doing, and has given the perspective that KLM agree with the audience, that the manner in which the squirrels were killed was unethical. Therefore, the protagonist has enabled a dialectical route in which to diminish the difference of opinion.
Having identified and analysed the coordination of the strategic maneuvers in the confrontation stage, I turn now to the realisation of the frame. In the confrontation stage the scandal is framed as a matter of formality. This is achieved in multiple ways. First, the protagonist has exploited the presentational devices by employing the argumentative technique of dissociation. This dissociation emphasises the fact that KLM were formally justified in their actions. In doing so, there is framing at the location of the text. This frame is “manifested by
the presence or absence of certain key words” (Entman, 1992, p. 52). Here, the key word is
‘formally’. This word is emphasised in the text to frame the scandal as a matter of formality.
In doing so, this framing technique in the confrontation stage supports the larger frame, that KLM are an innocent third party. As this scandal is a matter of authority, KLM can’t resolve this dispute as they are not the authority. The frame, that KLM are the innocent third party, begins to be developed in the confrontation stage as the protagonist creates the impression that the sole role KLM played in the events was their of compliance with a higher authority.
4.3 Strategic maneuvers and framing in the opening stage
I proceed with this extended analysis by analysing the strategic maneuvers in the opening stage.
In the opening stage of this press release, the argumentative moves involve a variation of starting points. The first argumentative move of note in the opening stage is the endorsement of the audience’s criticisms. The protagonist states that “KLM fully endorses the criticisms that have been voiced by the public and the various organisations” (lines 4-5). This is presented as a starting point because the protagonist uses it as a point of departure. In advancing this starting point, the protagonist creates the perception that KLM are taking into consideration the audience’s criticisms. The selection of the word ‘endorses’ is a presentational choice as it suggests that KLM are in agreement with the audience, and more importantly, appear to be adopting the criticism as their own. They are endorsing the reactions of the event. In doing so, the protagonist has presented a point of departure that both parties can agree upon, and has broadened the zone of agreement.
To proceed, I daw your attention to the following passage in the opening stage of the press release:
“The airline company has decided to start a thorough investigation into what exactly happened at the reception of the package in Beijing. The events in the KLM Cargo animals’ hotel will also be investigated” (lines 6-8).
In this passage, the protagonist advances a material starting point. A material starting point is a fact. Thus, it’s a fact that KLM have started an investigation. This is effective as it presents to the audience that KLM are taking responsibility for the event by investigating the matter. Furthermore, the term ‘investigation’ implies that KLM recognise this as a serious
matter that demands serious actions. This is therefore a selection from the topical potential that adapts to the audience demand.
In addition, the second sentence of this passage demonstrates an interesting manipulation of presentational devices. It is no coincidence that the protagonist chooses to refer to the animal accommodation as the ‘Cargo animal’s hotel’ (lines 7-8). The protagonist has chosen these words as they are exceptionally descriptive. A ‘hotel’ gives the perception that it is more than a mere animal shelter or holding facility. It conjures images in the audience’s mind that attempt to counteract the images of the killed squirrels. This is an attempt to manipulate and repair the company’s image.
In the opening stage, there are multiple framing techniques at play that intersect with the strategic maneuvers. As noted above, the first starting point of note is KLM’s endorsement of the audience’s criticisms. This selection from the topical potential is effective as it diminishes the difference of opinion by aligning the protagonists’ opinions with those of the protagonists’.
In terms of framing, the protagonist has developed a frame at the location of the receiver.
Entman understands this location to concerns a receiver’s thinking and the frames that guide such thinking. By selecting from the topical potential and presenting this starting point, the protagonist is framing themselves as a friend and guiding the audience’s thinking towards the perception that both parties share a point of departure. By framing themselves as someone who shares and endorses the same criticisms that are felt by the antagonist, KLM develops the larger frame that they are an innocent third party in this discussion because they are not in opposition with their audience. Thus, by framing themselves as a friend as opposed to a foe, KLM have contributed to the larger frame that they are the innocent third party, a party that is not involved in the difference of opinion between the audience and enemy.
The construction of this larger frame continues throughout the opening stage. For instance, when the protagonist declares that an investigation has been launched, they create the perception that they are taking it upon themselves to find out who is at fault. In doing so, the protagonist creates a dialectical route for them to relieve themselves of any responsibility. In other words, KLM is not at fault, but they are happy to carry the burden of investigating the real culprit. Again, this contributes to the construction of the frame that KLM is an innocent third party. At this point KLM is framed as a third party with an investigatory role. In selecting from the topical potential to advance this standpoint, the protagonist develops the frame at the communicator level, making the conscious decision to frame KLM as innocent bystanders.
Finally, the frame that KLM is an innocent third party is further developed when the protagonist makes the presentational choice to describe the animal holding facility as the
‘Cargo animal’s hotel’ (lines 7-8). In describing it in this way, the protagonists makes explicit attempts to counteract the images in the audience’s minds of the murdered squirrels, instead presenting the perception of humane treatment of animals. Overall, this aims to repair KLM’s image, simultaneously defying the audience’s belief that KLM’s treatment of animals is inhumane. This argumentative move has therefore attempted to distance KLM from its present perceptions, and in doing so, contributes to the frame that they are innocent. Furthermore, KLM’s cargo animal’s hotel appears to be so far removed from the killing of the squirrels that it develops the notion that KLM is not the main point of concern in the discussion. Hence, framing themselves as an innocent third party.
4.4 Strategic maneuvering and framing in the argumentation stage
In the argumentation stage of this press release, the protagonist advances the arguments in support of both standpoints. To remind the reader, the first argument is 1.1 KLM was following orders given by the Departments of Agriculture, Environmental Management and Fishing (AEMF).
This argument, as noted above in the analysis of the confrontational maneuvering, is a clever manipulation of the difference of opinion because this argument very easily supports the standpoint, that KLM was formally justified in its actions. It has a symptomatic relation to the standpoint. If someone is following orders then they are formally justified. In terms of the soundness of argumentation, this argument appears to be valid.
In advancing this argumentation, the protagonist has created two commitments for the audience. As noted above, the audience is comprised of all individuals who took offence to the killing of the squirrels. This includes the general public and various organisations, including the AEMF, the organisation that ordered the squirrels to be killed. In advancing the first argument, the protagonist creates a commitment on behalf of the AEMF to defend the order that was given. In doing so, the protagonist has evaded the burden of proof and laid it at the door of the AEMF. The AEMF is now committed to defend their actions.
This commitment is exaggerated by the presentational choice to use the word ‘forced’.
This is a particularly emotive word and emphasises the fact that KLM was at the mercy of a higher authority. If KLM were forced to kill the squirrels because they were ordered to do so by the AEMF, then the general public must take their accusations to the AEMF. This commits
the general public to adapt their standpoint from, ‘KLM was wrong to have killed the squirrels in this way’, to ‘The AEMF were wrong to have ordered the killing of the squirrels without adequate instructions’. This strategic maneuver creates the route for the evasion of the burden of proof and forces the antagonist to abandon their standpoint.
Further strategic maneuvers are made in the passage below:
“The Board of KLM holds … that the KLM employee concerned has acted formally correct in this matter by promptly following the directives of the Department of AEMF;
but also acknowledges at the same time that this employee has made an assessment
but also acknowledges at the same time that this employee has made an assessment