Falsely Framing Arguments

In his otherwise uninspired book, "the Conservative Nanny State" Dean Baker does bring up one great point: Free Trade advocates win the argument before it starts by framing the argument free-trade. After all who wants to be against free trade?

Of course "free trade" is anything but - its a lop-sided policy that benefits China (who is successful in proportion to the amount they restrict imports to their country and suppress their currency) Wall street, and the super rich but no one else.

Neoconservatives falsely framed the argument that it was Freedom vs. Islamisists - an idiotic term still floating around the media despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of "Muslim" militants are really just nationalists fighting back. But how could any touchy feely liberal or true blue conservative, even if they think the neocons are suspect - possibly support "Islamistist".

Despite the fact that Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn wisely chose such a name, and continues to say they are not against development of the yards- but rather the abuse eminent domain, the huge public outlays and the obvious boondoggle and corruption - the media still takes Fatner's lead and frames the argument as "Development" vs. "NIMBY".

In all the cases mentioned above, its time to re-frame the arguments and remind the reporters and the media that just because the proponents of deceptive policies frame it that way, it doesn't make it so.