Two identical crimes are committed, one by a "mentally troubled teen” and another by a “thug.” The difference between the two instances doesn’t stem from the situations themselves, but from how the media chooses to frame them. This intentional framing often exploits a vulnerability in our consumption habits: we tend to put faith in those meant to inform us, clicking share on a video without thinking, and above all, we make the optimistic assumption that a journalist’s priorities stem from providing us with unbiased facts regarding an event. The fact of the matter is, we are more than likely to be met with framing intended to almost manipulate us into taking a certain stance, which, in some extreme cases, has resulted in irreversible damage to those involved. But can a few words really have that much of an impact? CONTINUE