The best read article on Blendle Wednesday 27.09.2017 was: ‘Vegans have too little empathy for people’. This article was originally titled: ‘Vegans have a lot of empathy for animals, but too little for people’. In choosing to alter the title, and also in adding the quote: ‘flexitarians, who eat vegetarian one day a week, save more animals than all vegans together’ Blendle has shifted the frame from: ‘vegans have flaws’, to ‘vegans are bad people’ or ‘non-vegans are superior to vegans’.
This seems like a potentially harmful thing to do. When it comes to diets and veganism in particular, people already have very strong opinions, contrary to what Chong and Druckman (2007) argue. However, when you actually read the article, you find that it actually creates more understanding between vegans and non-vegans for their situation and believes, rather than further dividing them.
Framing is often considered as a bad- and harmful thing. Especially in this example where Blendle completely removes the context of the article. However, I believe that Blendle’s approach of framing articles may not be that harmful at all. Blendle chooses to prioritize the audience over the elite, following Chong’s (1996) theory. In doing so they may lure people into reading an article, that may actually challenge their believes.
Chong, D. (1996). Creating common frames of reference on political issues. Political persuasion and attitude change, 195-224.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 10, 103-126.
Visscher, M. (2017, September 26). ‘Veganisten hebben veel empathie voor dieren, maar te weinig voor mensen’. HUMO. Retrieved from: https://blendle.com/i/humo/veganisten-hebben-veel-empathie-voor-dieren-maar-te-weinig-voor-mensen/bnl-humo-20170926-dd4c04184a9?sharer=eyJ2ZXJzaW9uIjoiMSIsInVpZCI6InJhcXVlbHNjaGlsZGVyIiwiaXRlbV9pZCI6ImJubC1odW1vLTIwMTcwOTI2LWRkNGMwNDE4NGE5In0%3D