Nina Lu- Core Response #1

Something I found most interesting about the Boykoff and Carrington article analyzing Colin Kaepernick’s infamous kneel at the NFL in 2016 is this idea of “framing wars.” Media framing involves this idea that media outlets select and highlight specific elements of an issue or event to promote one interpretation or “framing” of the story. In the case of Colin Kaepernick’s kneel, there are three distinct frames that were bounced around in the media: the “patriot frame,” the “shut up and play” frame, and the “legitimate grievances” frame.

The patriot frame argues that Kaepernick’s choice to kneel during the National anthem is a shot at the entire nation, that “his decision to take a seat, and then a knee, during the national anthem was framed as a shot at the military or the nation in general.” (Boykoff and Carrington, 838). The “shut up and play” frame agrues that someone like Kaepernick should not be in a position to even speak up about such issues, that he is being corrupt with his platform. And finally, the legitimate grievances frame is one that sympathizes with Kaepernick, an acknowledgement that what was “missing from Sunday’s stage: a real discussion about the issues Colin Kaepernick wanted to highlight when he started the movement.” Juliet Macur, The New York Times (2017).

There are multiple interesting reasons why each frame was born— and in my personal opinion the most legitimate frame we should be taking in this information from Kaepernick should be the personal grievances frame. The other two frames were created merely out of defensiveness. Trump taking the discussion in a direction of patriotism created a new argument formulated to deflect the true issue that Kaepernick was trying to highlight. The former president ultimately acted out of defensiveness, because the person grievance issue stems from a systemic issue, which in turn is a political issue. Having to acknowledge that these inequalities and grievances are prevalent would be a form of admittance that the system is imperfect and has a flawed history— and this admittance can be seen as a “sign of weakness,” politically. 

    Yet there is a factor of the “shut up and play” framing that rings true— certain people, such as athletes and influencers aren’t equipped to speak on certain political issues when it doesn’t pertain to them. However, in the case of Colin Kaepernick, this personal grievance is very relevant to his life, and he has right to utilize his platform and speak up about his experience. It wasn’t meant to be a political attack— but there’s no denying this stems from a systemic, and therefore, political issue.