Lesson Report:
## Title: **Framing, “Don’t Think of the Elephant,� and Miskimmon’s Triptych: Analyzing and Countering Propaganda Narratives**
**Synopsis (2–3 sentences):**
This class reinforced the concept of *framing* in propaganda and politics, emphasizing how audiences process information through pre-existing mental structures rather than as neutral “fact processors.� Students practiced identifying the one-sentence “argument/story� behind a piece of media, then attempted to counter the *frame* without repeating its language (the “don’t think of the elephant� problem). The session closed by introducing **Miskimmon’s triptych** (formation, projection, reception) as a model for diagnosing how narratives are produced, spread, and interpreted.
—
## Attendance
– **Absent mentioned:** 0
– **Students noted as present/participating (names appearing in transcript):** Kamila, Natalia, Ainala, Helen, Yvonne/Ivan (both appear), Timur, Floran, Conakry, Nazbikiyeh, Zemira, Samira, Emad, Sen, Amina, Aynullah, Zamira.
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with activity names and detailed notes)
### 1) Audio check + re-entry into Monday’s theme: **What is a “frame�?**
– Instructor began by checking whether students could hear clearly (echoey room; headphone microphone).
– Prompted recall from Monday: *What does “frameâ€� mean in politics/propaganda?*
– Student responses summarized:
– Frames as **mental structures** shaping reality/interpretation (Kamila, Ainala).
– Frames as a **point of view** defining narrative (Natalia).
– Interpretation occurs in a **particular way** (Helen).
– Language fitting one’s worldview filters information (Natalia’s chat add-on).
– Instructor synthesis (key takeaways):
– People do **not** process new information like computers; information is filtered through existing narratives/worldviews.
– Frames explain why:
– **Falsehoods** can persist even after debunking (people ignore corrections).
– **True information** can still be used to spread misleading conclusions when attached to a “weaponizedâ€� frame.
—
### 2) Core metaphor: **“Don’t Think of the Elephant� and why rebuttals often fail**
– Instructor revisited the metaphor:
– Telling someone “don’t think of an elephantâ€� **activates** the elephant concept immediately.
– Application to propaganda rebuttals:
– Example from prior class: **AI-manipulated Olympics Village video** portraying Ukrainians as segregated for poor behavior.
– Even if viewers suspect AI manipulation, the message can still “landâ€� because it fits a pre-existing frame.
– Why a direct rebuttal is ineffective:
– Saying “Ukrainians are *not* barbarians…â€� repeats the frame’s language, validating and activating it.
– Larger political implication emphasized:
– Attempts to “argue across the aisleâ€� often intensify polarization because arguing on the opponent’s terms **legitimizes** their framing.
—
### 3) Individual in-class writing task: **One-sentence “argument� behind your media**
**Instructions**
– Students returned to their chosen propaganda/media example.
– Task: Write **one sentence** stating the argument the media wants the viewer to believe (the “story being toldâ€�).
– Students were told to draft privately, then send all at once.
**Shared examples (as discussed)**
– **Israel/violence framing:** “Israel is the main aggressor responsible for violence and sufferingâ€� (Helen).
– **Ukraine “barbarians/outside Europeâ€� framing:** Several students echoed this core narrative (Yvonne; Timur; Emad).
– **China–Taiwan escalation framing:** “China is aggressively preparing for war… conflict inevitableâ€� (Camila); related “jets crossing median lineâ€� (Zemira).
– **Iran protests framing:** “Many ordinary Iranians oppose the regime…â€� / “Iranians will be happy to change the regimeâ€� (Floran, Natalia).
– **Ukraine “special military operationâ€� framing:** Samira introduced Putin’s terminology choice as a framing move to minimize perceived scale/seriousness.
– **Kyrgyzstan(?) elite politics framing (Tashiev):** narrative implying strategic alliances/behind-the-scenes political maneuvering (Nazbikiyeh).
**Instructor feedback pattern**
– Students were generally accurate on “facts presented,â€� but the instructor pushed them to add:
– The **moral/emotional** layer (e.g., innocent victim vs aggressor; cruelty; illegitimacy; threat).
– Not just “what happened,â€� but “what is this supposed to make you feel/believe?â€�
—
### 4) Paired activity: **Counter the frame without activating it (no “elephant words�)**
**Instructions**
– Each student responded to the post **directly below** theirs in the chat (last person loops to the top).
– They had to argue **against the frame**, not against the facts.
– Crucial constraint: do it **without repeating the frame’s key language** (don’t activate it).
– Example prohibition: cannot respond to “Ukrainians are barbariansâ€� with “Ukrainians are not barbarians.â€�
**Review + critique of student attempts**
– Helen’s response to the Ukraine Olympics example was praised as strong **analysis**, but instructor noted it didn’t fully perform the *counter-framing* (it still repeated the trigger words).
– Camila’s response on Iran was critiqued:
– It challenged generalization (“society is complexâ€�), but reused a key term (“ordinaryâ€�), thereby activating the original framing.
– Several responses were flagged as “fact contestingâ€� rather than counter-framing:
– Example issue: responding to China–Taiwan messaging by debating whether invasion is likely, rather than addressing the emotional portrayal (aggressor vs victim; inevitability; moral assignment).
– Positive exemplars highlighted:
– **Aynullah** and **Sen** (re: bombed power plant in Ukraine) offered counter-frames that repositioned meaning:
– “Harsh but necessary measure,â€� “context,â€� “ceasefire leverage,â€� etc.
– Instructor framed this as closer to the assignment goal: shifting the story rather than disputing the occurrence.
– **Ivan** on Olympics/Ukraine: reframed inclusion via “Olympic family / equal termsâ€� instead of engaging the insult-based frame directly.
**Instructor mini-lecture (clarifying confusion)**
– Reinforced distinction:
– **Facts** (what happened) vs **frame** (what those facts *mean* and what moral/emotional conclusion they are designed to produce).
– Noted alternative reframing strategies commonly seen in conflict propaganda:
– “Accident,â€� “military necessity,â€� “psy-op / they did it to themselves,â€� etc. (used as examples of how competing frames get constructed).
—
### 5) Mini-lecture introduction: **Miskimmon’s Triptych as a narrative diagnostic**
**Transition**
– Instructor explained the reading’s value: frames are not random; they are often designed for strategic ends.
**Triptych components (as presented)**
1. **Formation**
– Who created the narrative/frame (not necessarily the literal uploader).
– What future/outcome does the storyteller want (endgame)?
2. **Projection**
– How widely and through what media channels the story spreads (Instagram, videos, imagery, etc.).
3. **Reception**
– How the audience interprets it (acceptance/resistance), and why.
– Reinforced earlier concept: propaganda has a target audience.
—
### 6) Final activity: **Triptych (Formation focus) autopsy of student media**
**Instructions**
– Students applied *only the Formation lens* to their media:
– Identify likely creators/communities/institutions behind the broader frame.
– Identify the **desired future/outcome** (what the narrative is trying to achieve).
– Emphasis: not “find the original uploader,â€� but identify the broader narrative source (state, movement, political camp, etc.).
**Examples discussed with instructor feedback**
– **Ukraine Olympics AI video**
– Timur: pro-Russian/anti-Ukrainian communities in Europe may circulate it; resonates with those predisposed to blame Ukrainian refugees.
– Ivan: “Kremlin narrative,â€� delegitimizing Ukrainian sovereignty; future where Ukraine does not exist independently.
– Instructor: both can be true; multiple origin points can reinforce same frame.
– **Bombed power plant in Ukraine**
– Sam: attributed to Ukrainian influencers/voices; desired future = international protection/support for Ukraine.
– Another student: “Ukrainian government and alliesâ€� pushing support/pressure; future = Ukraine survives/wins; Russia stopped.
– Instructor: acceptable; focus on the broader narrative intent.
– **China–Taiwan war inevitability video**
– Camila: identified Times Now (Indian broadcaster); argued it encourages perception of instability/inevitability of war.
– Instructor pushed further:
– Broader interests: why would Indian media emphasize this? Tie to India–China tensions.
– Likely desired future: China less militarily assertive; reduced interference/threat.
– **Israel/Palestine/Lebanon framing**
– Helen: pro-Palestine activists/regional media; desired future = global pressure on Israel; protection of civilians.
– Instructor: push beyond “more criticismâ€� toward concrete desired future: cessation of attacks/changes in policy/actions.
– **Iran protest videos**
– Floran: framed as citizen documentation seeking secular democracy/end of theocracy.
– Instructor: cautioned against assuming all protesters share a full ideological platform; tighten to “regime change / end of current governmentâ€� as the clearer desired outcome.
– **Tashiev elite-politics image**
– Nazbikiyeh: author unknown/anonymous; narrative fosters perception of elite conflict/strategy.
– Instructor: asked to sharpen—what specific perception is being engineered beyond “view eventsâ€�?
**Closing synthesis**
– Key skill goal reiterated:
– Move beyond “factsâ€� and “balanced he-said-she-said.â€�
– Identify the **story underneath**, why it’s being spread, what it wants the audience to believe, where it comes from, and what future it seeks.
—
### 7) Course logistics + next steps
– Instructor announced: **no class next week** (spring break / week off).
– Assigned reading before return: **Tang piece** (already on eCourse).
– Framed next unit:
– A pivot away from “doom and gloomâ€� toward **institutional/government responses** to propaganda (how groups try to tackle propaganda challenges).
– Noted it will be familiar to students from a prior democracy class but should be reread.
—
## Actionable Items (Organized by urgency; short bullets)
### High urgency (Before next class / over break)
– **Students:** Read the **Tang** article on eCourse before the next meeting (after the week off).
– **Instructor:** Confirm Tang reading link/location on eCourse and ensure it is clearly labeled for the post-break session.
### Medium urgency (Instructional follow-ups)
– Consider a brief post-break refresher slide/handout clarifying:
– “Arguing against factsâ€� vs “arguing against framesâ€�
– Common counter-framing strategies that avoid repeating trigger terms.
– Reinforce the **triptych vocabulary** (formation/projection/reception) with one clean worked example to reduce “middle-of-the-roadâ€� responses that avoid specifying narrative intent.
### Low urgency (Course development / future planning)
– Since students showed recurring difficulty identifying the “emotional/moral story,â€� consider adding:
– A checklist: *villain/victim/hero*, *threat*, *innocence*, *deservingness*, *betrayal*, *purity/contamination*, etc.
– Plan for “more diverseâ€� media examples next week as promised (rotate away from repeatedly used student artifacts).
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Read the Tang piece (for after the week off)
You will prepare for our post–spring break pivot from diagnosing propaganda (“doom and gloom�) to evaluating practical, real-world ways that institutions (especially governments) try to respond to propaganda.
Instructions:
1. Locate the reading titled the “Tang� piece (it is already posted on eCourse, as stated in class: “I’d like you before then to read the Tang piece. I think it’s already on eCourse.�).
2. Read the Tang piece carefully before our next class meeting (we will not meet next week because we have a week off: “I’m not going to see you guys next week. We have a week off…�).
3. As you read, focus on the course pivot described in class:
– Identify what approaches, tools, or strategies Tang describes for tackling propaganda.
– Note which actors/institutions are doing the tackling (e.g., governments, agencies, platforms, civil society—whatever Tang emphasizes).
4. If you took the professor’s democracy class previously and recognize the reading, still re-read it closely (“For those of you who took my democracy class last semester, you’re going to be familiar with this reading, but I ask you to go through it once again.�).
5. Come to the next class ready to discuss how Tang’s proposed solutions attempt to “get around� the framing/propaganda challenges we have been analyzing (“…we’re going to focus on what are some real ways that groups, especially governments, have tried to tackle the challenges posed by propaganda. How have institutions proposed getting around this?�).