And now, let's go to more serious topics. Let's talk about fake news, or the question: do we know, or have they let us know? And especially: do we know what we know, or did they let us know?

I would like to draw attention to a piece of news. Maybe you all know about the 10 year old girl who took part in a challenge on Tiktok, and she suffocated for it. You have read it. So you know.

You know that?

no, you don't know

No, you don't know. They let you "know".

Now, I know very well what the journalists will answer me (in chorus). They will say “eh, but we have ALWAYS used the conditional. We have NEVER sold the news as certain "

Sure. But the excuse is not, let's say it is very robust. We are talking about a “dis-” communication technique called “framing”. That is: if I put the same nude painting in a museum frame, then it is a "nude", if I put it in a brothel frame then it is "pornography". (don't ask me what the picture frames in brothels look like: I don't know).

So, let's imagine saying “dear journalist, IF your mother was a hopeless whore, and IF to take two sous she gave herself to zoophilia, then there would be no hope for mares”. As you can see, I used the conditional, but the sentence remains annoying.

It remains annoying because, in fact, I did "framing": the classic example is that of a person who tells you "don't think about an elephant!". You will immediately think of an elephant, which is the thing you don't want to think about. The phenomenon of framing, that is, "organizes" perception so that a given interpretation of a writing is preferred to another.

Let's take another example, to understand how simple (and how much used) framing is in communication.

Let's take two statements about the weather:

• Wrong weather forecasts make people go out dressed the wrong way.
• runaway weather makes it rain on a day that was supposed to be sunny.

we are talking about the same event. Each of the two sentences has a different framing: in the first case, it seems to be the fault of the wrong weather forecasts that people have left the house dressed in the wrong way.

In the second case, framing blames runaway weather. I mean, he didn't act like he should have.

In this case, most people will opt for the first sentence, as weather forecasts (you know) can be fallacious. For example, when the MOSE did not rise in Venice, the blame was given to the tide forecasts, which were too optimistic.

Few will think that if the newspaper gave sun but then it rains, it was the weather that was "wrong". We know that time is a fact, forecasts are an opinion.

Now let's take two more "frames":

• the that company has performed worse than expected, confidence in the company collapses.
• growth forecasts are unfounded, confidence in analysts collapses.

We are in the same case, but the framing here is ruthless: normally analysts who "predict" are considered oracles, and if the growth forecasts are not respected, then it is the company that has problems.

In other words, if the weather is worse than expected, the meteorologist is fired. But when a company doesn't grow as expected, analysts who have "predicted" aren't fired.

As you can see, not only does the framing phenomenon lead people to two opposite conclusions in similar cases, but different frames are used depending on whether we are talking about meteorology or finance.

The world of finance, in fact, has managed to impose a framing that considers analysts as oracles, and throws on companies the responsibility for not respecting the forecasts (or the merit of having done better). On the contrary, the framing of meteorology attributes failure to the meteorologist when forecasts and reality do not coincide.

So, the Italian newspapers "let you know", using the framing trick, that the little girl had died from a challenge born on tiktok. But they didn't write it: they created a frame of truth around a hypothesis.

The frame became so strong that the Guarantor blocked TikTok forcing it to keep a verification page. (the usual verification page that protects TikTok but not minors).

the Italian newspapers have never written that the child died from a challenge on TIkTOk. They always used the conditional. But they created a frame of truth around the news.

With the result that today many still believe in the story of the challenge on tiktok.

Sometimes, even politicians construct personal frames. For example, Merkel has built a very robust framing: "I've never defeated anyone, to the point of making him look like a loser." If you look at the 16-year career of chancellorship, you find that he has knocked out different people, including foreign leaders and / or supranational entities such as some large companies, and more.

You also discover that it has never allowed itself to be bent by US diktats (NATO spending increases according to the decisions of the German government, North Stream II is still there, etc) but for the framing it has built, none of those who have lost appears as a loser.

This is because Merkel knows that some characters "feel male" (or have the need not to call themselves losers, much less against a woman) and if she humiliates them the situation would escalate. If, for example, Navalny 's arrival in Berlin had been heralded as a defeat for Putin, the Russian dictator would have had to move much harder, for the sole purpose of enshrining his manly strength as a leader. Ditto with Trump.

Framing, however, also has a cost: always speaking of Merkel's framing, to prevent it from becoming “risk-free” bothering her, she has always had to inflict serious damage on challengers. For example, Tesla opening factories in Germany hiring tens of thousands of people , while Trump thunders that he wants all the jobs in the US, it was not a light blow.

The decision to exclude US companies from arms orders "putting the condition that the weapons offered in competitions must always be the latest cry", which excludes American companies as they cannot put the latest discoveries in competitions abroad, does not it was easy for Trump to digest .

However, none of these loud punches in the teeth made it to the press, because Merkel's framing as a politician is "I don't humiliate the enemies I beat up". All news, therefore, is given or "not given" according to this frame: even during the Greek crisis Tsipras and Varoufakis went to Brussels, they took their slaps, but Merkel was careful not to say "they are the losers and I I crushed them as you do with grapes ”. Still, he had.

Similarly, Trump's framing is to always look a winner, Putin's to look like a boy, and all of that. Each politician chooses his own framing.

For example, Draghi chose the framing of “the competent one”. The first steps of the government did not seem so competent, but once the frame is chosen, the newspapers will always talk about how competent Draghi is.

So yes, the question with the media is: "do we know" or "do they let us know?".

In the future I will make other posts on "tricks", such as framing, that newspapers use to make their pigs comfortable.