Frame Finding is a running series that breaks down how public figures, brands, and institutions shape perception through strategic language. Each post analyzes a real-world example—usually a quote in the news—and reveals the frame being used to steer emotion, attention, or belief.
We’re not here to fact-check or take sides. We’re here to observe the how behind the message:
This is for anyone who wants to say things more clearly—and see through the noise more easily.
Apple didn’t lead with strength—but they recovered. In this WSJ interview, they turned a delayed Siri rollout into a principled decision by shifting from defensive excuses to a long-term, quality-first AI vision.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem redirects a question about law enforcement levels by highlighting past violence and blaming Governor Newsom—an example of red herring and emotional framing at work.
Gov. Gavin Newsom uses contrast, consensus, and vivid emotional examples to frame mass deportations as a betrayal of American norms—turning a policy dispute into a threat to democratic values.
In response to Gov. Newsom’s warning that the National Guard would escalate tensions in Los Angeles, Sen. James Lankford reframed the move as de-escalation—arguing that history shows chaos follows when leaders wait too long.
Senator Tim Kaine accepts the premise that Trump’s tariff plan reduces the deficit—but reframes it by exposing the cost. He uses a metaphor and a regressive tax analogy to show the burden is shifted onto everyday Americans. The result? A powerful negative frame: deficit reduction comes at a price.
Sen. Ron Johnson frames Trump’s megabill by starting with a clear goal—reducing the deficit—then uses contrast to show how the bill fails that goal. It’s a clean example of goal framing that relies on consistency and outcome rather than outrage.
Sen. Jeff Merkley reveals how a proposed tax bill helps billionaires while hurting families—then points out that these outcomes don’t align with past campaign promises. It’s a framing move built on contrast and consistency, encouraging the audience to quietly notice what’s changed.
The Speaker reframes a controversial spending bill as a “reconciliation package,” injects the metaphor “jet fuel,” and overwhelms criticism with a flood of benefits—creating a powerful frame built on optimism, not math.
When asked about a New York Times article on alleged drug use, Elon Musk didn’t address the report directly. Instead, he redirected attention to the publication’s past controversies—framing the question itself as unworthy of response.
