I’ve been reading the Framing Science blog a little bit lately, and for those of you who are gobbling up political opinion nowadays (and you know who you are) you can find a little bit more of it on Framing Science, from a scientific bent. He’s got a fair amount on climate change (such as McCain’s climate ad) and also some musings on other aspects of the campaign, such as the role of religion in Obama’s campaign. For anyone not aware of Framing Science, blogger Matt Nisbett does just that — talks about the implicit frames that define the message that’s being conveyed, separately from the content.

For anyone familiar with the McCain climate ad, Nisbett summarizes an interesting study that tracked viewers emotions during the course of the ad:

…John McCain’s recent television ad focusing on global warming, he frames his position as a pragmatic “middle way” approach between the two extremes of denying there is a problem and resorting to heavy taxation and regulation. The ad even ends by offering up the complementary frames that global warming is in fact a national security problem and involves a moral duty to future generations. Perhaps most notably, the ad opens by using imagery of more intense hurricanes, a “pandora’s box” framing that has led to claims of alarmism directed at advocates such as Al Gore.


What’s interesting from the results [of the study], is that in the beginning of the ad, Democrats respond positively to the opening pandora’s box frame focusing on hurricanes, all three partisan groups decline in reaction to the discussion of two gridlocked polar extremes on the issue, and then Republicans spike favorably to the frame focus on national security and moral duty respectively.