Framing Divides: How the Same Evidence Creates Different Perceptions of a Minneapolis Death

Within minutes of Renee Nicole Good’s death in Minneapolis, digital battlelines were drawn in what experts call “framing contests” – competing efforts to shape how the public interpreted video evidence of her killing by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

The stark political divide in reactions to the incident reveals a fundamental truth about our information landscape: interpretations of events are heavily influenced not just by facts, but by the mental frameworks through which we process them.

For those politically left-leaning, the footage showed what they considered a cold-blooded murder by a masked federal agent – part of what they view as an unjust crackdown on immigrants and federal overreach into local communities.

Meanwhile, many on the political right interpreted the same evidence as showing Good putting herself in harm’s way, antagonizing officers performing their duties. Some even suggested she attempted to use her vehicle as a weapon, or that the officer reasonably feared for his safety.

“It’s not about the facts, but the frames,” explains Kate Starbird, professor of Human Centered Design and Engineering at the University of Washington and co-founder of the Center for an Informed Public.

These frames – mental structures that help people interpret information – are shaped by prior experiences, conversations with others, and broader media consumption. They determine which evidence we prioritize, how we interpret that evidence, and what information we might disregard entirely.

“In my experience, online misinformation is less a problem of ‘bad facts’ and more often due to faulty frames – frames that are corrupted or strategically distorted,” Starbird notes.

What makes this case particularly significant is how quickly government agencies became active participants in the framing contest. The Department of Homeland Security released statements suggesting Good’s killing was justified, characterizing her as an aggressor and even labeling her a “domestic terrorist.” The strategic release of certain evidence, promoted by Vice President JD Vance, reinforced the portrayal of Good as an agitator.

Simultaneously, local officials including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey pushed back against this characterization, offering counter-frames that portrayed the ICE presence as unwanted and potentially making residents less safe.

The speed and intensity of these competing narrative-building efforts highlight how sophisticated political forces have become at shaping public perception in the digital age. These framing contests now begin within minutes of breaking news events, with various stakeholders rushing to establish their interpretation as the dominant one.

The technical term for this phenomenon is “strategic framing” – the deliberate creation and promotion of frameworks designed to influence how audiences interpret available evidence. It’s a cornerstone of modern propaganda, influence operations, and disinformation campaigns.

What makes this dynamic particularly challenging for the average citizen is that these frames operate largely at a subconscious level. Most people aren’t aware of how their existing mental frameworks filter the information they consume, leading them to believe they’re making objective assessments while actually processing events through partisan lenses.

The division over Good’s death exemplifies a broader pattern in American political discourse, where even the most documented incidents can spawn entirely different perceived realities depending on one’s political alignment.

Understanding these framing dynamics has become essential for navigating today’s information environment. As Starbird points out, recognizing how frames shape our interpretations is vital “no matter what your politics and/or values are at this moment.”

The Good case serves as a stark reminder that in an era of ubiquitous video evidence, seeing is not necessarily believing – at least not in the same way across political divides. What we “see” is increasingly determined by who frames it first and most effectively.