Chapter 3 Exercises: Rhetoric and Framing

Individual Exercises

Exercise 3.1 — Ethos, Pathos, Logos Analysis (†) Select a political speech from any era (a text transcript is fine). Identify at least two specific examples of each: ethos appeals (how the speaker establishes credibility), pathos appeals (how the speaker manages the audience's emotional state), and logos appeals (evidence and argument). For each example, note whether you consider the appeal legitimate or exploitative, and why. Total: 500–600 words.

Exercise 3.2 — The Equivalency Framing Test Take the following five pairs of terms. For each pair, (a) look up whether they refer to the same phenomenon or policy; (b) identify which term is more emotionally charged and why; (c) explain who benefits from each framing choice: - "Death tax" / "Estate tax" - "Pro-life" / "Anti-abortion" - "Undocumented immigrant" / "Illegal alien" - "Enhanced interrogation" / "Torture" - "Collateral damage" / "Civilian deaths"

Exercise 3.3 — Issue Framing Comparison (†) Find two news articles about the same event from different news outlets. Identify: the problem definition each article uses, the causal explanation implied, the moral evaluation conveyed, and any treatment recommendation embedded in the framing. The articles should cover the same facts but frame them differently. Write a 400-word analysis comparing the two frames.

Exercise 3.4 — Metaphor Hunt Identify five conceptual metaphors embedded in current political language — phrases or terms that structure how their subject is understood through an implicit comparison. For each, (a) name the metaphor, (b) identify what it implies about the subject, and (c) describe how the implied meaning benefits or disadvantages a particular political position.

Exercise 3.5 — Counter-Framing Exercise Take a politically charged sentence from current public discourse that uses a loaded frame (e.g., "the radical left's open-borders agenda," "trickle-down economics," "pro-growth tax reform," "voter fraud"). Rewrite it in two ways: (a) with a frame that favors the opposing position and (b) with as neutral and accurate a frame as you can construct. Discuss which version is most accurate, which is most persuasive, and whether these are the same.

Exercise 3.6 — Inoculation Campaign: Framing Audit Complete the Chapter 3 Inoculation Campaign component: apply the frame analysis checklist to two pieces of media targeting your community. Write a 500-word combined analysis.

Group Exercises

Exercise 3.7 — Framing Debate Your instructor will provide a policy issue. Half the class will argue for the issue using one frame; the other half will argue against it using a different frame. After the debate, the class will discuss: which frame was more emotionally effective? Which was more accurate? Were these the same frame?

Exercise 3.8 — Agenda-Setting Audit In groups, each member tracks the front page (or homepage) of a different major news outlet for one week, recording which stories receive prominent placement. At the end of the week, compare: which issues do different outlets treat as most important? What issues are prominent on some outlets and absent from others? What might explain the differences?

Writing Prompts

Short Response (300–400 words): Frank Luntz's memos advise using language chosen for psychological effect rather than accuracy. Is this propaganda? Use the working definition from Chapter 1 to evaluate Luntz's practice, then identify where you are certain and where you are uncertain.

Essay (700–900 words): Lakoff argues that effective political communication requires challenging frames rather than arguing within them. Using at least two specific examples from current political discourse, evaluate this claim. What would it look like in practice to challenge a frame rather than argue within it? What are the risks of this approach?