A Philosophical Analysis

Introduction

In our contemporary information landscape, the line between legitimate political discourse and manipulative messaging has become increasingly blurred. Every day, citizens encounter countless attempts to shape their understanding of events, issues, and candidates. While some of these efforts represent legitimate political communication, others cross into the territory of manipulation and propaganda. Understanding the difference isn’t merely academic—it’s essential for maintaining healthy democratic discourse.

The 2024 election cycle demonstrated how disinformation and strategic framing significantly shaped public perception of candidates and issues, with organized efforts to sway voters through both traditional media and emerging AI-generated content. Yet not all persuasive communication is inherently problematic. The challenge lies in developing a framework that can distinguish between legitimate framing devices and manipulative techniques.

This article examines political framing devices through a philosophical lens, exploring how they function, when they serve legitimate purposes, and when they cross into manipulation. By understanding these distinctions, we can better navigate the complex terrain of modern political communication and develop more sophisticated approaches to evaluating the messages that surround us.

Understanding Framing: The Philosophical Foundation

What Is a Frame?

Framing, in its most basic sense, refers to “a schema of interpretation, a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes, that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events.” People build mental “filters” through biological and cultural influences, then use these filters to make sense of the world.

The basis of framing theory is that media and communicators focus attention on certain events and then place them within a field of meaning. Framing is an unavoidable part of human communication—we all bring our own frames to our communications. This inevitability is crucial to understand: because all communication requires selection and emphasis, pure objectivity is impossible. The question isn’t whether framing occurs, but whether it serves legitimate purposes.

From a philosophical perspective, framing operates at the intersection of epistemology and rhetoric. It shapes not just what we think about, but how we think about it. Framing involves selecting and emphasizing certain aspects of perceived reality, defining problems, diagnosing causes, making moral judgments, and suggesting remedies. This process inevitably involves value judgments about what aspects of reality deserve attention and how they should be understood.

The Aristotelian Foundation

To understand the ethical dimensions of political framing, we must return to Aristotle’s foundational work on rhetoric. Aristotle distinguished between rhetoric as a legitimate tool for public reasoning and its potential misuse for manipulation. He viewed rhetoric as “an ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion” and positioned it as “a counterpart of dialectic”—an art of practical civic reasoning.

Aristotle recognized that what separates the honest rhetorician from the dishonest one lies not in discursive competence but in moral choice (προαίρεσις). The difference between legitimate rhetoric and sophistry is fundamentally ethical, rooted in the speaker’s intentions and relationship to truth.

This Aristotelian perspective provides a crucial insight: the same communicative techniques can serve either legitimate or illegitimate purposes, depending on the speaker’s intent and relationship to truth. A political frame that honestly represents a speaker’s perspective on complex issues serves a different function than one designed to deceive or manipulate.

Legitimate Political Framing Devices

Democratic Necessity

Political framing serves several legitimate functions in democratic societies. First, it helps citizens navigate complex issues by providing organizing principles and contextual frameworks. Framing theory examines how issues are constructed interactively, represented in mediated form, and interpreted within an institutionalized policy sphere. In a democracy where citizens must make informed decisions about complex policy matters, some degree of simplification and emphasis is not just inevitable but necessary.

Consider economic policy debates. Raw economic data—unemployment rates, GDP figures, inflation statistics—means little to most citizens without interpretive frameworks that explain what these numbers signify for their lives. When politicians frame these statistics in terms of “economic recovery” or “growing inequality,” they provide necessary context that helps citizens understand the implications of complex data.

Advocacy and Representation

Political framing also serves the legitimate function of advocacy. In a pluralistic democracy, different groups have different interests and perspectives that deserve representation. Politicians and media use framing to shape public discourse and influence voters, and framing effectiveness depends on source credibility, cultural resonance, and audience beliefs.

When environmental advocates frame climate change in terms of urgent action needed to prevent catastrophe, while business groups frame the same issue in terms of economic impacts of regulation, both are engaging in legitimate advocacy. Each group emphasizes aspects of reality that align with their values and interests. The democratic process relies on this competition between frames to help citizens understand different perspectives on complex issues.

Persuasion vs. Manipulation

The philosophical tradition provides clear criteria for distinguishing legitimate persuasion from manipulation. Recent philosophical work identifies necessary and sufficient conditions—”Suitable Reason and Testimonial Honesty”—for distinguishing manipulative from non-manipulative influence.

Legitimate political framing operates through what philosophers call “communicative influence”—providing evident reasons for audiences to believe or choose particular options. When a political candidate frames their healthcare proposal as “ensuring universal access to care,” they’re making a claim that can be evaluated, debated, and either accepted or rejected based on evidence and reasoning.

Manipulation, by contrast, operates by bypassing rational deliberation. Manipulation is a type of influence where the target is moved to action without overt threats or coercion, but that falls short of persuasion. It works by exploiting cognitive biases, emotional vulnerabilities, or information asymmetries rather than engaging citizens’ capacity for reasoning.

When Framing Becomes Manipulation

The Role of Truth and Deception

The line between legitimate framing and manipulation often centers on the relationship to truth. When rhetorical language fails to account for contingency and complexity, it becomes open to deceitfulness and manipulation. This often occurs when speakers mistake theoretical reasons for practical ones, creating totalizing discourses that disregard facts for the sake of universal claims.

The 2024 election demonstrated this problem, with examples including false stories about immigrants eating pets, fabricated claims about disaster relief funding, and AI-generated content designed to mislead voters. These weren’t legitimate framings of complex issues but outright fabrications designed to exploit fears and prejudices.

The philosophical problem with such approaches is that they undermine the conditions necessary for democratic deliberation. Citizens cannot make informed choices when the information they receive is fundamentally deceptive. This violates what we might call the “democratic compact”—the mutual obligation of participants in democratic discourse to engage honestly with shared problems.

Exploitation of Cognitive Biases

Psychology has shown that simple repetition of an idea is often more effective than appeals to reason. “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” represents a propaganda technique that exploits psychological rather than rational processes.

Modern media environments amplify these concerns. The 2024 election saw AI tools used to create synthetic content, manipulated images, and targeted disinformation campaigns designed to amplify polarization rather than inform deliberation. These techniques work by overwhelming citizens’ capacity for critical evaluation rather than engaging their reasoning abilities.

The philosophical problem here is what we might call “cognitive exploitation”—the deliberate use of techniques designed to bypass rational reflection. While all communication involves psychological elements, manipulation specifically targets psychological vulnerabilities to achieve compliance rather than understanding.

The “Trans Ideology” Case Study

The term “trans ideology” provides a clear example of manipulative framing. Issue-based frames shape how people process political information by defining problems, diagnosing causes, making moral judgments, and suggesting remedies. The “trans ideology” frame fails each of these tests.

First, it misdefines the problem by suggesting that civil rights advocacy constitutes an ideological system when it actually focuses on specific policy goals like healthcare access and anti-discrimination protections. Second, it misdiagnoses causation by implying coordinated indoctrination rather than organic social movements responding to genuine grievances. Third, it makes moral judgments based on mischaracterization rather than honest engagement with actual advocacy positions.

This example illustrates how manipulative frames work: they create the appearance of substantive analysis while actually obscuring rather than clarifying the real issues at stake.

The Media’s Role in Frame Amplification

Platform Dynamics and Algorithmic Amplification

Modern social media platforms lack adequate content moderation and often amplify divisive content through algorithmic design. Different platforms operate under varying content policies, creating inconsistent standards for political discourse.

The media’s role in political framing has evolved significantly with digital platforms. Traditional journalism operated under professional norms that, while imperfect, created some accountability for accuracy and fairness. Social media platforms, by contrast, often amplify content based on engagement rather than truthfulness, creating incentives for sensational and divisive framing.

The 2024 debates demonstrated how live fact-checking and increased media control highlight the growing role of media in shaping political narratives, creating tensions between truth, bias, and storytelling. This evolution raises new questions about the media’s responsibility for enabling or constraining manipulative framing.

The Economics of Attention

The modern media landscape operates on an “attention economy” where engagement metrics often matter more than accuracy. This creates systemic pressures toward sensational and polarizing content. Close to two-thirds of US internet users identify social media feeds as the primary source of disinformation and fake news, significantly higher than other information sources.

From a philosophical perspective, this represents a corruption of the information commons that democratic societies require. When economic incentives reward divisive framing over accurate reporting, the entire system of democratic deliberation becomes compromised.

Philosophical Tools for Analysis

The Logic of Practical Reasoning

Aristotle appealed to a logic that can deal with contingency in human affairs. This logic of practical reason has a public dimension that serves as a stronghold against the despotism of language in the social sphere.

Practical reasoning differs from theoretical reasoning in its relationship to contingency and uncertainty. Political issues rarely admit of definitive, universal solutions. They require judgments about competing values, uncertain outcomes, and trade-offs between different goods. Legitimate political framing acknowledges this contingency, while manipulative framing often presents false certainty.

Critical Thinking and Frame Analysis

Critical thinking involves the proper use and goals of reasoning methods applied in social contexts, focusing on errors in reasoning and the evaluation of arguments for truth, usefulness, and other values.

Citizens need tools for evaluating political frames critically. This involves several key capacities:

Source Evaluation: Who is making the frame, and what are their interests? Framing effectiveness depends partly on source credibility and cultural resonance. Understanding the source helps evaluate whether framing serves legitimate advocacy or manipulative purposes.

Evidence Assessment: Does the frame accurately represent available evidence, or does it selectively emphasize supportive information while ignoring contrary evidence? Legitimate frames acknowledge complexity and uncertainty; manipulative ones often present false certainty.

Logical Structure: Does the frame follow sound reasoning, or does it rely on logical fallacies? Teaching fallacies as rhetorical strategies rather than isolated errors helps students understand how problematic reasoning appears in political discourse.

Value Transparency: Does the frame acknowledge its underlying value commitments, or does it present contested values as objective facts? Honest political discourse acknowledges that different frames reflect different priorities and values.

Case Studies in Contemporary Political Framing

Economic Policy Framing

Consider how different political actors frame economic inequality. Progressive politicians might frame growing inequality as a “crisis of fairness” requiring government intervention through taxation and social programs. Conservative politicians might frame the same statistics as reflecting “differences in effort and skill” that government intervention would only worsen.

Both frames select certain aspects of economic data for emphasis. The progressive frame highlights trends in wealth concentration and their historical relationship to social policies. The conservative frame emphasizes individual agency and the role of market mechanisms in creating incentives. Both can be legitimate if they honestly represent their proponents’ values and reasoning while acknowledging competing perspectives.

The framing becomes manipulative when it misrepresents data, ignores contrary evidence, or presents contested value judgments as objective facts. For example, claiming that inequality statistics are simply fabricated (false factual claim) or that anyone who disagrees hates success (mischaracterizing opponents) crosses into manipulation.

Immigration and Border Security

The 2024 debates included examples of hyperbolic rhetoric about immigration, such as claims about immigrants “eating pets,” which served narrative functions by painting pictures of societal decay while positioning speakers as capable of reversing decline.

Immigration provides another instructive case. Legitimate framing might emphasize either humanitarian concerns (focusing on refugee protection and family reunification) or security concerns (focusing on border control and legal immigration processes). Both perspectives involve genuine policy tradeoffs and reflect real values held by significant portions of the population.

The framing becomes manipulative when it relies on fabricated claims, promotes unfounded fears, or dehumanizes immigrant populations. The “eating pets” rhetoric cited above exemplifies this problem—it creates emotional responses based on false premises rather than engaging seriously with immigration policy challenges.

Healthcare Policy

Healthcare policy debates illustrate both legitimate and illegitimate framing approaches. Supporters of universal healthcare might frame the issue as “ensuring basic human dignity” while emphasizing stories of families bankrupted by medical bills. Opponents might frame it as “protecting individual choice” while emphasizing potential government inefficiencies.

These frames become manipulative when they misrepresent opponents’ positions (“death panels”), ignore inconvenient evidence (cherry-picking international comparisons), or exploit emotional appeals without engaging substantive policy questions.

The Technology Challenge: AI and Synthetic Media

New Forms of Manipulation

The 2024 election saw unprecedented use of AI-generated content, including manipulated images, synthetic audio, and AI-created videos designed to deceive voters. Politicians used AI tools to create false endorsements and portray opponents in misleading ways.

Artificial intelligence creates new challenges for distinguishing legitimate framing from manipulation. Legal challenges to AI disclosure requirements reflect First Amendment concerns about overly burdensome regulations on political speech. Yet the technology’s capacity for creating convincing false content poses serious threats to democratic deliberation.

The philosophical challenge is maintaining space for legitimate political rhetoric while preventing technological manipulation. This requires updating our understanding of manipulation to account for new capabilities while preserving the essential freedom of political expression.

The Question of Detection and Disclosure

Wisconsin’s 2024 law requiring disclosure of AI use in political advertising represents one approach to managing these challenges, though enforcement remains difficult and penalties may be insufficient deterrents.

Disclosure requirements reflect a philosophical principle: democratic deliberation requires that citizens understand the nature of the communications they encounter. When AI-generated content appears without disclosure, it violates the conditions necessary for informed evaluation.

However, disclosure alone may be insufficient. Generative AI is becoming increasingly sophisticated and harder to distinguish from authentic content, suggesting that detection-based approaches may ultimately prove inadequate.

Developing Ethical Standards

Professional Responsibilities

Ethical framing involves presenting multiple perspectives on complex issues, and transparency about framing choices can enhance credibility. This suggests several principles for ethical political communication:

Truth Commitment: Political actors should maintain fundamental commitment to factual accuracy, even when advocating for particular perspectives. This doesn’t require false neutrality, but it does require honest representation of available evidence.

Perspective Acknowledgment: Ethical framing acknowledges that it represents one perspective among others, rather than claiming universal objectivity. This allows for legitimate advocacy while maintaining honesty about the partial nature of all political viewpoints.

Opponent Respect: Ethical political discourse represents opponents’ positions fairly rather than constructing strawman versions designed for easy refutation.

Consequence Consideration: Political actors should consider the broader implications of their framing choices for democratic discourse, not just their immediate strategic benefits.

Institutional Safeguards

Civil society and academia can work with emerging social media platforms to promote democratic values and prevent disinformation, suggesting the need for collaborative approaches to maintaining discourse quality.

Protecting democratic discourse requires institutional as well as individual responses. Educational institutions should provide citizens with tools for critical evaluation of political frames. Media organizations should develop and enforce professional standards that distinguish journalism from propaganda. Technology platforms should design systems that promote rather than undermine quality discourse.

Regulatory approaches must balance protection against manipulation with preservation of free expression. Legal challenges to content restrictions reflect genuine constitutional concerns about government regulation of political speech. The goal should be creating conditions that favor honest discourse rather than directly regulating speech content.

Global Perspectives and Comparative Analysis

Authoritarian Manipulation

Research on government-controlled media demonstrates how authoritarian regimes use framing to shift policy attitudes by presenting the same issues differently, moving populations toward regime positions regardless of individual predispositions.

Studying authoritarian manipulation provides insights into democratic vulnerabilities. Authoritarian systems often use sophisticated framing techniques that exploit the same psychological and social mechanisms present in democratic societies. The difference lies not in the techniques themselves but in the absence of competing voices and institutional safeguards.

This comparative perspective highlights the importance of pluralistic media ecosystems and competitive political discourse. When citizens have access to multiple frames and the freedom to choose among them, they can make more informed judgments. When information environments become dominated by single perspectives, even democratic societies can experience manipulation similar to authoritarian systems.

Cross-Cultural Considerations

Studies of political framing in different cultural contexts, such as Ghana’s 2024 election, demonstrate how platform-specific affordances and cultural factors shape framing strategies and voter engagement.

Political framing operates differently across cultural contexts, reflecting varying norms about authority, individualism, community, and political participation. What counts as legitimate framing in one cultural context might be perceived as manipulative in another.

This cultural variation doesn’t imply moral relativism about manipulation, but it does suggest that frameworks for evaluating political discourse must be sensitive to cultural context while maintaining core commitments to honesty and respect for human agency.

The Future of Political Discourse

Technological Trajectories

Current technological trends suggest that distinguishing authentic from synthetic content will become increasingly difficult. Deepfakes and AI-generated content are becoming more sophisticated, potentially making traditional detection-based approaches insufficient for maintaining discourse integrity.

This technological trajectory requires rethinking approaches to media literacy and political discourse. Rather than relying primarily on detecting false content, we may need to develop citizens’ capacities for reasoning about political claims regardless of their source. This shifts emphasis from technological solutions to educational and cultural ones.

Educational Implications

Critical thinking education helps audiences critically evaluate framing in political communication, involving understanding of reasoning methods, social contexts, and errors in reasoning.

Future citizens will need more sophisticated tools for navigating complex information environments. This requires educational approaches that go beyond simple media literacy to develop deeper understanding of how political reasoning works, how frames shape perception, and how to evaluate competing perspectives fairly.

Educational institutions should teach students to recognize both legitimate and illegitimate framing techniques, understand the philosophical principles underlying democratic discourse, and develop practical skills for evaluating political claims in uncertain information environments.

Institutional Evolution

Democratic institutions may need to evolve to address new challenges posed by technological change and information complexity. This might include new forms of public media designed to provide high-quality information, reformed electoral systems that reduce incentives for manipulative communication, or new regulatory approaches that protect discourse quality without restricting legitimate expression.

The goal should be institutional designs that enhance rather than restrict human agency, creating conditions where citizens can make informed political choices based on honest discourse about shared challenges.

Conclusion: Toward Philosophical Clarity

The distinction between legitimate political framing and manipulative messaging is not merely technical but fundamentally philosophical. It reflects deeper questions about the nature of democratic discourse, the relationship between rhetoric and truth, and the conditions necessary for human flourishing in political communities.

Aristotle’s insight remains relevant: what distinguishes honest from dishonest rhetoric lies in moral choice rather than technical competence. The same communicative techniques can serve either democratic deliberation or manipulation, depending on the speaker’s relationship to truth and respect for audience agency.

In our current moment, characterized by technological disruption and political polarization, maintaining this distinction requires active effort from all participants in democratic discourse. Citizens must develop more sophisticated tools for evaluation. Political actors must maintain commitment to ethical communication even under competitive pressure. Institutions must evolve to support rather than undermine discourse quality.

The stakes are not merely academic. Recent research demonstrates that false claims and manipulative framing affect how people understand candidates, issues, and the political process itself. When manipulation becomes normalized, it undermines the foundations of democratic legitimacy.

Yet the solution is not to eliminate political rhetoric or return to some imagined state of pure objectivity. Political discourse necessarily involves selection, emphasis, and interpretation. The goal is ensuring that these processes serve democratic rather than manipulative purposes—that they enhance rather than diminish citizens’ capacity for informed political judgment.

This requires ongoing philosophical reflection about the purposes of political communication, the nature of democratic citizenship, and the conditions necessary for human agency in complex political environments. It also requires practical wisdom about how to apply these philosophical insights to the concrete challenges of contemporary political life.

The conversation between philosophical principle and political practice is never complete. Each generation faces new challenges that require fresh thinking about old problems. Our current technological and political moment demands such thinking—rigorous, honest, and committed to the democratic values that make genuine political discourse possible.

In the end, the distinction between framing and manipulation reflects our deepest commitments about how human beings should relate to one another in political communities. Should political discourse enhance or diminish human dignity? Should it promote or undermine the capacity for reasoned choice? Should it serve the common good or narrow interests?

These questions cannot be answered through technical analysis alone. They require moral reasoning about the kind of political community we want to create and sustain. The framework developed in this article provides tools for that reasoning, but the ultimate responsibility lies with each of us as participants in democratic discourse to use those tools wisely and well.

The health of democratic discourse depends not on the elimination of political persuasion but on its elevation—creating conditions where political actors compete through honest advocacy rather than manipulation, where citizens engage as reasoning agents rather than passive targets, and where political discourse serves the noble purpose of collective deliberation about shared challenges rather than the narrow goal of winning at any cost.

This is both a philosophical and practical challenge. Meeting it requires understanding the distinction between legitimate framing and manipulation, developing institutions that support high-quality discourse, and cultivating the intellectual and moral virtues necessary for democratic citizenship. The analysis provided here offers a foundation for that work, but the work itself remains an ongoing responsibility for all who value democratic governance and human dignity.

---

Sources Used

Academic and Scholarly Sources:

1. Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. 1972. University of Chicago Press.
2. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10 (2007): 103-126.
3. Entman, Robert M. “Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43, no. 4 (1993): 51-58.
4. Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani. “The changing culture of affirmative action.” Research in Political Sociology 3 (1987): 137-177.
5. Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
6. Roslyng, Mette Marie, and Camilla Dindler. “Media power and politics in framing and discourse theory.” Communication Theory 33, no. 1 (2023): 11-20.
7. Pan, Zhongdang, and Gerald M. Kosicki. “Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse.” Political Communication 10, no. 1 (1993): 55-76.
8. Scheufele, Dietram A. “Framing as a theory of media effects.” Journal of Communication 49, no. 1 (1999): 103-122.

Research Reports and Policy Analysis:

9. Brookings Institution. “How disinformation defined the 2024 election narrative.” November 7, 2024.
10. Just Security. “How to Combat Emerging Global Social Media Manipulation in 2024.” March 26, 2024.
11. Oxford Political Review. “The Power of Political Storytelling: How Framing Shapes U.S. Presidential Debates.” February 16, 2025.
12. eMarketer. “Political Content and Social Media 2024.” February 16, 2024.
13. Future of Privacy Forum. “U.S. Legislative Trends in AI-Generated Content: 2024 and Beyond.”
14. Cambridge University Press. “How government-controlled media shifts policy attitudes through framing.” Political Science Research and Methods (2021).

Contemporary Analysis and Case Studies:

15. PBS Wisconsin. “AI, media manipulation and political campaign lies in 2024.” October 1, 2024.
16. The SAIS Review of International Affairs. “Social Media, Disinformation, and AI: Transforming the Landscape of the 2024 U.S. Presidential Political Campaigns.” January 14, 2025.
17. MDPI Journalism and Media. “Social Media Campaign Strategies: A Case Study of Political Issue Framing by 2024 Presidential Candidates in Ghana.” May 14, 2025.
18. Cambridge University Press. “Manipulation in politics and public policy.” Economics & Philosophy 40, no. 3 (2024): 685-710.

Philosophical and Theoretical Sources:

19. Aristotle. Rhetoric. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002.
20. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Argument and Argumentation.” July 16, 2021.
21. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Critical Thinking.”
22. Mass Communication Theory. “Framing Theory.” February 18, 2014.
23. Redalyc. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric as an Enhancement of Practical Reasoning.”
24. Composition Forum. “From Logic to Rhetoric,” Issue 32.

Additional References:

25. ArXiv. “Narrative Media Framing in Political Discourse.” May 31, 2025.
26. ResearchGate. “Frames in Political Communication: Towards Clarification of a Research Program.” 2011.
27. Wikipedia entries on Framing (social sciences), Rhetoric, and Argumentation theory (accessed September 2025).
28. Fiveable Study Guide. “Framing theory and political communication.”