11/30/2012 Morality of framing an issue

This coming Friday at the Ideas Cafe, we are discussing how issues are presented and discussed.

Framing.

We naturally think of adding a set of frames to a picture or photograph to make it stand out, present it in a better light, or bring out a particular quality by the contrast derived from the frame.

So it is when we choose to discuss an issue.  The introduction, the setting, the background picture, and even the identity of the presenter, all contribute to the overall feel of the issue, how we consider it, and what path the discussion or thought process will follow.

Just this past Wednesday at the philosopher's cafe in New Westminster, Mano was trying to present the idea that too much of popular history was portrayed as due to heroes and outstanding individuals when the prevailing sentiment and circumstances at the time was likely more dominant than the simplified picture of attributing events to a particular personality like Lincoln, Newton, or Einstein, to name a few.

The discussion became very lively as to whether it was the individual or the circumstance that set the course of history.

I can't help but think that if the topic was introduced differently; say to name the type of influences we have on history, whether it be weather, geography, disease, industrial innovation, religion, etc., we will end up with quite a different discussion.  Maybe we will end up with a conclusion that there are many factors influencing history rather than the debate of whether it was the heroes or the circumstances.

Knowing the importance of how an issue is introduced and framed, is it fair game for the presenter to put their take of the issue in the introduction?

How obligated is the presenter to present ideas that he disagree with?

When does omission enter the territory of not telling the truth?
 
There are just so many perspectives when considering how to present an issue, how is one to choose?

Media reporters quite predictably keep their audience in mind and shape their reports to the audience' perspective.  Does it not lead to insular thinking when the audience is not challenged and always have "yes man" reporters catering to them?
 
It seems that it is almost impossible to have a neutral framing for an issue.  Maybe it is up to each of us to be vigilant of the source, presentation, and tone of the issue and be on guard.

Given that we always seems to be thinking and discussing in a serial manner with one thought or idea triggering the next, we are always vulnerable to how the issue discussion got started.

Perhaps it is best to have several minds with different backgrounds and leanings for the discussion. At least we have a chance to choose which way to branch off after the discussion issue is launched, inevitably in one particular direction.
 
Seems to me we are talking about the ideas cafe discussions!  

Let's hear your thoughts this Friday!