Will the Real Transparency Bill Please Stand Up?

This airfare from Hipmunk.com shows the per-person price of this flight--including the fare, taxes, and mandatory fees. Alas, luggage fees and other optional fees might still apply, but the customer does have some choices with those.
This airfare from Hipmunk.com shows the per-person price of this flight–including the fare, taxes, and mandatory fees. We can thank the Department of Transportation’s 2012 full-fare rule for this information. Alas, luggage fees and other optional fees might still apply, but the customer does have some choices with those.

Since 2012, I’ve enjoyed being able to look up airfares online and know right away what a given flight would cost–fare, taxes, and mandatory fees. Alas, the airlines provide the full fare apparently not from a desire for good customer service because of a 2012 Federal Department of Transportation rule requiring them to.

I say it’s apparently not motivated by the airlines because the airline lobby and unions are trying to get Congress to undo that rule. Doing so would allow airlines to go back to showing us only the fare upfront and then socking us with the taxes and fees late in the checkout process.

What do they call the bill that would make it harder to me to know what a flight would cost me? The Transparent Airfares Act, of course!

This is an example of Orwellian language: the name says the opposite of what it means. Advocates use Orwellian language when their position is weak.

Because the name its supporters use is dishonest, it’s important that the bill’s opponents avoid using it. What should opponents call it instead?

  • The Obscuring Airfares Act
  • The Airfare Surprise Act
  • The Airfare Bait-and-Switch Act

Or something else?

I learned about this bill from this informative Omaha World-Herald story and Christopher Elliot’s Seattle Times article.

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), at right, introduced the Real Transparency in Airfares Act to counter the airline industry’s Orwellian bill. In this photo, he is receiving the foreign minister of Singapore, K. Shanmugam.

New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez (D) has introduced an alternative to the industry-sponsored bill called the Real Transparency in Airfares Act. His bill would leave the full-fare rule in place and double fines on companies that violated it. At first, I was uneasy with this name because it includes the Orwellian name of the industry bill, but this framing makes sense to me now.

Strictly speaking, though, the Menendez bill doesn’t seem to increase airfare transparency, just toughen the rule’s enforcement.

But we can do more than use a different name. We could point out that the full-fare rule protects customers, and that airline profits have been at record highs since the rule came into effect! Coincidence? Probably, but it doesn’t seem to have hurt the airlines.

Furthermore, this is another case in which wise government regulation creates confidence between an industry and its customers. Confidence is good for business. While airlines might make more money if the full-fare rule were scrapped, that might come at the cost of trust. Loss of trust increases the chance that travelers would look for other options.

What do you think? Should the industry bill be known as the Airline Industry Shoots Itself in the Foot Act?

Found: A Candidate Who Says “Affordable health care is a right.”

I’m happy to say that, thanks to Elizabeth Wilner of Cook Political, I’ve finally found a candidate willing to say that access to healthcare is a right! His name is Doug Gansler. You can watch him say “Affordable care is a right” in the campaign ad below:

Doug Gansler: the first honorary Framologist! Photo Credit: mdfriendofhillary via Compfight cc
Doug Gansler: the first honorary Framologist!
Photo Credit: mdfriendofhillary via Compfight cc

The attorney general (D) of Maryland, Mr. Gansler is running for governor. The primary election will take place on June 24. Marylanders should check out the Baltimore Sun’s election guide.

Wilner’s article reports on a conference of pollsters. She says that because about equal numbers of Americans like “keep and fix” as “repeal and replace,” Republican candidates are likely to change from talk of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to talk of fixing it.

She notes that talk of fixing would give Republican candidates “a simpler line than Democrats, who continue to grapple with how to support the ACA—or at least, counter Republican attacks—in their ads….” She says that Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG) names three lines that Democratic candidates have taken:

  • Negative = positive: “[My Republican opponent] would deny coverage for preexisting conditions and/or let insurers charge women more for healthcare or mammograms.”
  • Partial pro: “[Democratic incumbent] held insurers accountable and/or ensured coverage of preexisting conditions and affordable access for women.”
  • Yay PPACA!: “helping the President pass healthcare reform”

Wilner found only four candidates nationwide that have cheered the Patient Protection Act in their advertising.

She correctly notes that Democratic candidates don’t have much time “to repair the negative impression people have about the law before Election Day.”

Here’s an example I’ve noticed in my state. Before the primary election, Republican candidates for all levels of office declared their opposition to “Obamacare” in TV ads.

And the Democratic candidates? I saw no ads from them on television at all. They seem to have let their opponents rule the airwaves and frame the healthcare reform debate their way for months. Will they learn from Doug Gansler?

No matter the primary outcome, for his fine framing of the healthcare reform issue and standing up to the bullies, Doug Gansler is now the first honorary Framologist. Congratulations!

How Should Traffic Be Managed on the Information Superhighway?

Internet traffic should flow freely and equally. Photo Credit: tricky (rick harrison) via Compfight cc
Internet traffic should flow freely and equally.
Photo Credit: tricky (rick harrison) via Compfight cc

I’m glad to see that NPR’s headline about today’s FCC vote uses the phrase Internet traffic. Unlike net neutrality, the traffic metaphor suggests movement and action.

It also brings power to mind. Who is managing the traffic and to what end?

In a letter to the editor, I used the phrase Internet traffic speed. While writing, I thought it important to include the word speed because speed seemed like the issue was about. But now I see that speed is only one dimension of Internet traffic. Other important dimensions include political control of Internet traffic and the moral values of equality and freedom that underly the Web.

What do you think? Should managing Internet traffic replace Net neutrality, or am I splitting hairs?

.

Seeking Pro-healthcare Reform Ads

Andrew Prokop observes that hardly any campaign ads defend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act directly. I’m not surprised. The name Obamacare frames the issue as Obama rather than past problems with America’s healthcare system. In a sense, I’m glad there are no ads defending Obamacare: that name deserves no defense. Every TV ad I’ve seen for a Republican candidate says he wants to repeal Obamacare.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is about patient protection, not just affordability. Photo Credit: Anoto AB via Compfight cc
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is about patient protection, not just affordability.
Photo Credit: Anoto AB via Compfight cc

As I’ve said before, supporters of the law and/or President Obama should call the law by its name or shorten it to the Patient Protection Act and talk about how it protects the rights and health of patients. I continue to beat this drum because it’s so important to the mid-term election.

Do you know of any pro-Patient Protection Act ads? I’d love to see them!

Pro-Business Often Means Pro-Boss

An earlier post pointed out that many policies that are commonly called pro-business are really pro-management and advocates using that name. But in the spirit of using shorter words, why not call them pro-boss policies?

Boss is more emotionally charged than management and makes clear that the policies would benefit those at the top, not necessarily business as a whole.

What do you think? Is this accurate? Is it helpful to Framologists?

The Truth about Union Bosses

While reading a book about framing that I highly recommend, Frank Luntz’s Words that Work, I found the common phrase union bosses on page 91. It brings to mind a time when some labor unions were thought to be closely associated with political machines and organized crime. I haven’t heard of such associations being a big problem today. Have you?

Besides deceptively bringing to mind long-gone bad old days, union bosses also might confuse the listener about who the boss really is: the elected leaders of labor unions or management.

Psst...it's management

If you share this concern, please consider talking about duly elected union leaders when others mention union bosses.

What do you think? Does it matter if Framologists accept the phrase union bosses?

This Post Is Un-American, Part 2

Progressives are no more communists than conservatives are Nazis. Namecalling is unacceptable. Photo Credit: quinn.anya via Compfight cc
Progressives are no more communists than conservatives are Nazis. Namecalling is unacceptable.
Photo Credit: quinn.anya via Compfight cc

As mentioned in a previous post, progressives are sometimes labelled “collectivists.” This is meant to tar them as communists. The implication that progressives want government to own and control everything is false and unacceptable.

How should Framologists reply? How about:

Using that word is namecalling, a form of bullying. That’s got to stop. Progressives do believe in working together to solve community problems. We also believe in strong government whose wise oversight helps create trust between businesses and customers. We believe that government should protect citizens from abuse and neglect by unscrupulous businesses.

How do you think progressives should reply when called collectivists?

How “Obamacare” Frames the Debate

Here’s an ugly example of why supporters of the Patient Protection Act should avoid the term Obamacare:

As you can see, the term directs attention away from the law’s moral purposes and toward Barack Obama the man. Continuing to call the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Obamacare encourages this sort of thinking and behavior.

“The Nebraska Democratic Party believes that affordable, accessible, quality health care is a basic human right.”

The Nebraska Democratic Party is asking the candidate to pull this ad. While the party’s statement deplores the violence against an image of the president, it does not mention the party’s platform position on the moral issue of access to health insurance: that “affordable, accessible, quality health care is a basic human right” (p. 39).

I wish it would. Why isn’t this truth being shouted from the housetops? Do you know?

This Post Is Un-American

Billionaires Charles and David Koch have spent millions to influence elections and government policy.
Billionaires Charles and David Koch have spent millions to influence elections and government policy.

Democrats are working to frame some of this year’s elections as about Charles and David Koch. As Peters and Hulse report in the New York Times, these billionaire brothers are spending a lot of money to influence elections across the nation.

Mr. Hulse’s interview with On the Media discusses using words like un-American to describe the Kochs and collectivists to label progressives.

The word un-American should be used sparingly, if at all–especially when describing a person. Unless used very carefully, it’s name-calling and probably attributing evil motives to someone who doesn’t mean harm.

I do think that some behavior might be considered un-American, but because people have different views of our country’s interests and values, that’s also tricky. It’s best to avoid the word.

Do you think it’s appropriate to label people as un-American? Is there such a thing as un-American behavior? Why or why not?

No, “Enhanced Interrogation” Is Worse, Not Better

Several times this month, I’ve heard news stories such as this one  use the phrase enhanced interrogation to describe painful treatment of terrorism suspects.

This expression has no place in objective journalism because it is biased in favor of inflicting pain. After all, enhanced means improved.

And the claim that inflicting pain gets better results is questionable at best. For example, Joe Navarro, former FBI special agent and author of a book about effective interrogation, says that what is called enhanced interrogation does not work.

Inflicting pain on purpose is torture, but if that word seems too harsh, journalists trying to objective could use the phrase “painful interrogation methods” instead. That’s accurate and removes the assumption that the painful methods must be better than standard methods.

How do you think Framologists should respond to enhanced interrogation?