Issue framing in a political context, means presenting an issue in a way that will likely get the most agreement from others. In a mediation process, issue framing is quite different, and involves identifying core issues between two disagreeing parties, so that issues and facts related to issues may be discussed and resolved. Discussion of issue framing will be limited to its use in politics.

In issue framing, from a political sense, language is often used as a way to gain compliance on contentious points. Use of language is geared toward knowledge of the audience, a concept first developed by the Greek sophists called kairos. Kairos essentially means knowing what is right and proper to say for a particular concept and at a particular time.

Thus, those who employ issue framing are essentially relying on techniques developed about 2500 years ago that show how one can effectively engage an audience. Two questions in issue framing are “What words can I use that are most likely to affect an audience and gain their approval?” and “When should I approach certain issues?”

In modern times, issue framing tends to involve a great deal of work. Before political speeches are written, focus groups or surveys may be performed to analyze the most effective strategies for addressing an audience. This is particularly the case with speeches in high profile campaigns or State of the Union Addresses in the US.

Issue framing is certainly not exclusive to any political party. All political parties use key words or phrases, sometimes called sound bytes, which they hope the media will co-opt, thus ensuring a continued reinforcement of a set of ideas. As well, groups devoted to key issues often employ issue framing.

For example, the debate on legalized abortion continues to rage. The two sides are those who support the “right to life,” and those who support the “right to choose.” To be pro-abortion is to imply a negative element. Instead, those supporting abortion identify themselves as pro-choice. Many politicians deliberately state, as did John Kerry, that they are against abortion but reluctant to take away choice.

Issue framing may also be called “spinning” a story. When President Bush gave justification for invading Iraq, he initially used issue framing to suggest the purpose of the invasion was to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The words weapons of mass destruction connote fear. In light of the mass destruction at the World Trade Center, this issue framing succeeded well. Mass destruction was to be avoided, and war on Iraq would help this. The issue was reframed as the "War on Terror," when searches revealed no weapons.

Obviously, those who do not support the Iraqi war, do not call it the "War on Terror," but are more likely to refer to it as an "unjust war," or a "war for oil." Neither side plays completely fair with the facts, as there are many explanations and arguments both for and against the war. However framing such a divisive issue allows one to advance political goals and influence public thinking.

Issue framing has more to do with effective communication strategies eliciting a desired response than the facts. Presentation of the facts changes everything. It is almost impossible to avoid issue framing, since most people have an opinion, and that opinion will influence word choice.