Lesson Report:
## Title: Framing, Identity, and Why Debunked Propaganda Still Works
**Synopsis (2–3 sentences):**
This session advanced the class from *verification/OSINT-style fact checking* into *re-politicizing media* to understand how propaganda functions even when facts are disputed or disproven. Using Lakoff’s concept of **framing** (and building on earlier ideas from Van Bavel about polarization and identity), students analyzed how narratives create **heroes/villains/victims** and why audiences continue to share falsehoods when they “feel true� within an existing frame. The class ended by introducing Lakoff’s “Don’t Think of the Elephant� problem: why direct debunking can reinforce the very narrative it tries to defeat.
—
## Attendance
– **Absent mentioned:** 0 (no student absences were explicitly noted)
—
## Topics Covered (chronological, with activity names and details)
### 1) Course Transition: From Fact Verification to Narrative Analysis
– Instructor re-established the course’s trajectory:
– Previous weeks: students practiced **verification** by stripping political meaning away from media to isolate confirmable facts (what can/can’t be proven).
– Today’s goal: **add politics back in** to understand how states/actors build narratives.
– Core guiding questions introduced:
– Why do **lies** remain popular after being debunked?
– Why can **truthful information** still function as propaganda?
### 2) Launch Example: The “CBC Reporter in Milan / Ukrainians Housed Separately� AI-Edited Video
– Instructor revisited a prior student example (Group 1):
– A modified video allegedly showed a CBC reporter in Milan claiming Ukrainian Olympic participants were housed separately due to misbehavior.
– The class previously established this was **false**, created by **AI grafting** new content onto an existing report.
– Instructor highlighted a pattern:
– Even after false content is publicly debunked, it often **continues to circulate** (shares/likes persist).
– Purpose of revisiting:
– To foreground the problem that **empirical falsity does not necessarily reduce political power**.
### 3) Quick Reflection + Whole-Class Discussion: “Why Do Debunked Falsehoods Stay Popular?�
**Prompt (posted in chat):**
– *“Why do you think some media that promote falsehoods remain popular even after being publicly debunked?â€�*
**Student responses and concepts surfaced:**
– **Confirmation bias / motivated reasoning (Matt + echoed in chat):**
– People favor information that aligns with pre-existing beliefs and dismiss debunking.
– **Emotion as a driver (Shannara + others):**
– Outrage/fear/hope and emotional resonance can override accuracy.
– **Repetition effect / illusory truth (Floran):**
– Repeated claims feel true over time.
– **Identity alignment (Helen + others):**
– People accept content that matches identity/values; identity protection helps explain persistence.
**Instructor bridge to earlier course reading:**
– Reconnected to **Van Bavel**: polarization and identity-based interpretation of facts.
– Pivoted to today’s new layer: beyond identity—**Lakoff’s “frames.â€�**
### 4) Introducing Lakoff: Framing and the “Enlightenment Myth�
– Instructor checked reading completion (few/no students had read Lakoff yet) and emphasized reading before Wednesday.
– Lakoff’s target claim:
– Challenges the **“Enlightenment Mythâ€�**: the belief that if people are simply given facts, they will rationally arrive at the correct political conclusions.
– Key idea explained:
– Humans do not process facts as computers; interpretation happens through a **frame**—a cognitive/emotional structure mediating meaning.
– Context: Internet era paradox:
– People have more access to information than ever, yet remain polarized and can cling to objectively false beliefs.
### 5) Framing in International Relations: “Nation as Person� (Personification Metaphor)
– Instructor introduced one of the most common IR frames:
– States described as singular people (“The US did X,â€� “Kazakhstan did Yâ€�) despite being complex systems.
– Why it matters:
– Personification simplifies but makes audiences vulnerable to **framing effects**.
**Mini-activity (individual reflection → chat share):**
– Task: brainstorm phrases/metaphors that personify states (no chat until prompted).
– Examples students contributed (representative set drawn from transcript):
– “Friendly nationâ€�
– “Rogue stateâ€�
– “Sick economyâ€�
– “Young nationâ€�
– “Rotten Westâ€�
– “Unstable,â€� “unwelcomingâ€�
– “Broken systemâ€�
– “Strict fatherâ€� (previewing Lakoff’s moral models)
### 6) Close Reading Activity: Bush (2003 Iraq context) “We Don’t Need a Permission Slip…�
**Text analyzed:**
– George W. Bush statement: the US does not need a “permission slipâ€� to defend America (re: UN objections to Iraq invasion).
**Instructor-guided interpretation steps:**
1. Define the metaphor’s everyday context:
– “Permission slipâ€� = a school-related document for children (bathroom pass, absence note, etc.).
2. Identify roles cast by the metaphor:
– **UN** framed as **teacher/principal/hall monitor** (authority checking behavior).
– **US** framed as **adult/teacher** who operates above such rules—doesn’t need approval.
3. Extract implication:
– The metaphor silently installs a **hierarchy** (authority + legitimacy) without explicitly arguing it.
### 7) Student Metaphor Collection: Political Metaphors Used by Leaders/Influencers
**Mini-activity:**
– Students provided metaphors used by politicians/influencers; instructor selected several for discussion.
**Examples surfaced:**
– “Do not poke the bearâ€�
– “Iron curtain has descended…â€� (Churchill)
– “Drain the swampâ€� (Trump)
– “Make America Great Againâ€� (treated as near-metaphorical framing)
– “Bright future,â€� “economic miracle,â€� “lay a strong foundationâ€�
– (Instructor noted some entries were direct policy statements rather than metaphors, e.g., “build a wall.â€�)
### 8) Concept Clarification: Hierarchies (Power vs. Moral Hierarchy)
– Instructor paused to define **hierarchy** since the term was being used repeatedly:
– Power/authority ranking (chain of command).
– Examples students offered:
– Military ranks (soldier → commander → general)
– School structure (principal → teacher → student)
– Family structure (parents → older siblings → younger siblings)
– Expanded definition:
– **Moral hierarchy**: ranking by righteousness/goodness rather than formal authority.
### 9) Worked Example: “Do Not Poke the Bear� as a Frame
– Instructor unpacked the metaphor (often used about Russia):
– Russia = **bear**: wild, powerful, dangerous.
– “Pokingâ€� implies:
– The “bearâ€� is initially dormant/docile (sleeping) but extremely capable of violence.
– The actor who “pokesâ€� is careless/dumb/self-destructive.
– Outcome:
– Creates a storyline where provocation is inherently irrational and blame shifts to the provoker.
### 10) “The Biggest Frame of All�: Stories as Hero/Villain/Victim Structures
– Instructor emphasized narrative universals:
– Most political stories reproduce **hero vs. villain** (and often **victim**) roles.
– Transition back to OSINT media:
– Students previously verified facts; now they must map narrative roles.
**Activity (whole-class, using existing Google Doc rather than breakout rooms):**
– For each group’s chosen media item, identify:
– **Heroes**
– **Villains**
– (Optional) **Victims**
**Examples presented aloud:**
– **Ivan (Olympic Village / Ukrainians separated claim):**
– Ukrainians framed as “barbariansâ€� (villains/antagonists).
– “Other sportspeopleâ€� / unspecified others framed as justified defenders/complainants (heroes by implication).
– Additional suggested meta-frame: “Europe/West as hypocritical/decadent,â€� enabling destructive outsiders.
– **Elaim (US–Iran case framing reversal):**
– Frame A (pro-US): US as hero liberating Iranian people (victims) from harsh regime (villain).
– Frame B (anti-US): US as evil aggressor; Iranian leader framed as hero/victim (religious legitimacy invoked).
– **Kamila (China–Taiwan tensions video):**
– China depicted as aggressive militarized villain (missiles/boats imagery).
– Taiwan framed as vulnerable victim under threat.
– US suggested as potential hero/protector (referenced via Trump mention).
### 11) Why Frames Outlive Facts: Target Audience + Comfort/Believability
– Instructor reinforced the key mechanism:
– For some audiences, the **frame feels true** even if specific facts are false.
– “Debunkingâ€� doesn’t remove the emotional narrative structure; it may leave the “overall pointâ€� intact for believers.
**Final short reflection + share-out (wrap-up activity):**
– Questions:
1) Who is the target audience of the media?
2) Why would that audience find the frame comforting/believable—even if false?
**Examples shared:**
– **Helen (Israel attacking Lebanon media):**
– Target: global audience but especially pro-Palestinian/pro-Lebanon viewers.
– Why it works: aligns with a pre-existing belief/frame of Israel as harming Muslims; facts become secondary to narrative consistency.
– **Ainula (Russia damaging Ukrainian thermal power plants):**
– Target: Western/international audiences (US/Europe).
– Why it works: aligns with an anti-Russia frame—attacks on civilian infrastructure reinforce aggressor narrative regardless of details.
### 12) Closing Concept: Lakoff’s “Don’t Think of the Elephant� and Why Debunking Can Backfire
– Instructor explained the central paradox:
– Telling someone “don’t think of an elephantâ€� immediately makes them think of an elephant.
– Application to propaganda response:
– Saying “Ukrainians aren’t barbariansâ€� repeats and reinforces the core frame (“barbariansâ€�) rather than replacing it.
– Fighting propaganda on its own terms can inadvertently **activate and sustain** the opponent’s frame.
– Preview of next steps:
– Upcoming classes will address how to engage narratives without triggering/strengthening harmful frames.
### 13) Reading / Next Class Reminder
– Instructor directed students:
– Read/finish **Lakoff** (at least scan; ideally read fully).
– Read **Miskamin** (requested fairly thoroughly).
– Objective for Wednesday:
– Continue advancing from framing to broader narrative construction and strategies for response.
—
## Actionable Items (organized by urgency; short bullets)
### High Urgency (Before Next Class / Wednesday)
– **Students:** Complete readings:
– Lakoff (*Don’t Think of an Elephant* / framing reading): at minimum scan; ideally read.
– **Miskamin**: read thoroughly (instructor emphasized for Wednesday).
– **Instructor:** Continue Wednesday lesson plan focusing on:
– Narrative strategies and how to respond to propaganda without reinforcing frames (“elephantâ€� problem).
### Medium Urgency (Course Progress / Follow-up)
– Revisit earlier OSINT media examples and ensure each has:
– A clear **hero/villain/victim** mapping.
– Identified **target audience** and explanation of emotional/identity-based appeal.
– Consider assigning/collecting the “secondary analysisâ€� step mentioned early in class:
– Track whether debunked content continues circulating after debunking (persistence assessment).
### Low Urgency (Classroom Process)
– If participation suggests low reading compliance, consider:
– A short structured reading check (quick quiz or guided prompts) to support Wednesday’s discussion quality.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Complete the Week’s Readings (WACOF + Miskoman)
You prepare yourself for Wednesday’s discussion by finishing the two assigned readings that the lesson repeatedly returned to when discussing why falsehoods persist, how “frames� shape interpretation, and how political narratives structure heroes/villains/victims.
Instructions:
1. Locate the two readings assigned for this week:
1. **WACOF** (described in class as “by far the easiest of the two readings to digest�).
2. **Miskoman / Miskamin** (the second reading that you were told to read “fairly thoroughly� before Wednesday).
2. Read **WACOF** in full.
– As you read, focus on how the reading helps answer the class’s opening question: **why media that promote falsehoods can remain popular even after being publicly debunked**.
3. Read **Miskoman** carefully (“fairly thoroughly,� as stated in class).
– As you read, look for concepts that connect to what you did in class when you:
– Identified **heroes vs. villains (and possibly victims)** in a piece of politically framed media.
– Considered **target audiences** and why a frame can feel “comforting or especially believableâ€� even if specific claims are true/false.
4. Take brief notes (bullet points are fine) on both readings that you can bring to Wednesday, specifically:
1. One idea from each reading that helps explain **why people cling to falsehoods** (emotion, identity, repetition, etc.).
2. One idea from each reading that helps explain **how narratives/frames are constructed** (how meaning gets added beyond “just facts�).
5. Be prepared to use your notes in Wednesday’s class discussion (the lesson emphasized that you “really need to be� through the readings to participate effectively).
ASSIGNMENT #2: Read/Review Lakoff on Framing (“Don’t Think of an Elephant�)
You get ready for Wednesday by reading (or at minimum scanning) Lakoff’s framing argument discussed in class—especially the “Enlightenment Myth,� the concept of frames as the meaning-layer between facts and interpretation, and why direct debunking can accidentally reinforce propaganda.
Instructions:
1. Open the assigned Lakoff reading on **framing** (referred to in class as the “Don’t Think of an Elephant� text).
2. If you did not read it before class, read it now with special attention to the sections connected to what was covered in the lesson:
1. **The “Enlightenment Myth�** (the idea that “if we can just give people the facts, then they’ll naturally come to the right conclusions,� which Lakoff critiques).
2. **Frames** as the interpretive structure that shapes how people understand words/facts (the “layer of meaning between the words that we read and our interpretation of those words�).
3. Why fighting a narrative by saying “X is not true� can backfire (the “don’t think of an elephant� logic: repeating a frame can strengthen it).
3. If you are short on time, do what was explicitly suggested in class:
– **At least scan through Lakoff** to capture the main argument and key examples used to demonstrate framing.
4. Write down (in a few sentences each) the following, so you can use them in Wednesday’s discussion:
1. Your own definition of a **frame** based on Lakoff (in your own words).
2. One example (from class or your own) where **debunking** might accidentally reinforce the original propaganda narrative.
3. One connection between Lakoff’s framing ideas and the in-class propaganda analysis steps (verification → then “adding politics back in� by identifying **heroes/villains/victims**, **target audience**, and **why the frame feels believable**).
5. Bring these notes to Wednesday, since the lesson ended with a direct request: “**If you haven’t read Lakoff, please do before Wednesday**.�