The Words We Choose

Leads to: 1984: 2+2=? — a 6-week project exploring how control works

Your Challenge

Find examples of framing choices — in the news, in advertising, and in your own words.

Every time someone describes something, they make choices. Which words? Which details? What’s emphasized, and what’s left out?

This isn’t automatically deception. It’s how language works. But noticing the choices — and asking why they were made — is a skill most people never develop.

You will.

What You’ll Experience

In 30 minutes, you’ll:

• Hunt for real examples of framing choices in the world around you
• Notice how the same thing can be described in completely different ways
• Catch yourself making framing choices too
• Decide for yourself which framings serve understanding and which obscure it
• Understand why this matters before reading 1984

Before You Hunt: A Note on Sources

Every news source has a perspective. That’s not a scandal — it’s reality. No outlet is perfectly neutral, and that’s okay. Your job in this hunt isn’t to find the “true” source. It’s to notice how different perspectives show up in word choices.

Tools to help you compare:

• AllSides — Shows the same story from left, center, and right sources side by side. Transparent about bias rather than pretending neutrality.

• Ground News — Aggregates news from thousands of sources. The “Bias Bar” shows how coverage is distributed across the political spectrum. The “Blindspot” feature reveals stories being ignored by one side — which is itself a framing choice.

Use these tools, or pick your own sources. The point is comparison, not finding the “right” answer.

The Hunt

Step 1: Start With Yourself (5 minutes)

Before you look outward, look inward.

Find an example of YOUR OWN framing.

Think about a recent situation you described to someone — a conflict, an event, something that happened to you.

• How did you describe it?
• What details did you include? What did you leave out?
• Would someone else involved describe it the same way?

Now find a text or message you actually sent. Look at how you worded something. Ask yourself:

• Why did I choose these words?
• How might I have described this differently to a different person?
• Was I trying to make myself look a certain way?

Write down: One example of a framing choice YOU made. No judgment — just notice it.

This isn’t about catching yourself being dishonest. It’s about recognizing that framing is something humans do. All of us. All the time.

Step 2: The Same Event, Different Words (10 minutes)

Your hunt: Find the same news event described by two different sources.

Pick something currently in the news — it doesn’t matter what. Then find coverage from two different outlets.

What to look for:

• How do the headlines differ?
• What words are different? (“Protesters” vs. “rioters”? “Said” vs. “claimed”?)
• What details does one include that the other leaves out?
• What’s the overall feeling each one creates?

AI can help you search:

What's a current news story being covered by multiple outlets
with noticeably different framing? I want to compare how different
sources describe the same event.

Or just pick a story and search for it across different sources yourself.

Write down:

• The event
• Source 1’s framing (headline, key word choices)
• Source 2’s framing (headline, key word choices)
• What’s different — and what effect does the difference create?

Don’t conclude yet. Just notice.

Step 3: The Word That Could Have Been Different (5 minutes)

Your hunt: Find a word choice that could have gone another way.

Look for examples where a softer or harder word was chosen:

Find one real example — in a news article, a company announcement, an advertisement, or anywhere else.

AI can help:

Give me examples of common euphemisms and their blunter equivalents.
I'm looking for word pairs where the same thing is described
in softer vs. harder language.

Write down:

• The softer version
• The harder version
• Where you found the softer version being used
• Why do you think that choice was made?

Important: Not all euphemisms are deceptive. We say “passed away” out of kindness. We say “let go” because “fired” feels harsh. The question isn’t whether softer language is always wrong — it’s whether you notice the choice.

Step 4: Your Judgment (5 minutes)

Now it’s time to evaluate.

Look at the examples you’ve collected:

• Your own framing choice
• The two different news framings
• The euphemism you found

For each one, ask:

1. Does this framing help me understand what happened — or does it obscure it?
2. Who benefits from this framing?
3. Is there information I’d need to get the full picture?

Write down your evaluation of ONE example:

• What was the framing choice?
• Do you think it served understanding or hid something?
• How did you decide?

There’s no answer key. This is YOUR judgment.

Step 5: The Reflection (3 minutes)

You just spent 25 minutes noticing framing choices — including your own.

Answer honestly:

1. Was it hard to notice framing once you started looking?

2. Did any framing feel clearly unfair or misleading? What made it feel that way?

3. Did any framing feel reasonable even though it was clearly a choice? What made that one feel okay?

4. How do you decide when framing crosses a line?

Step 6: Your Response (2 minutes)

Write one or two sentences:

“Framing becomes a problem when…”

Complete the thought in your own words.

Check Yourself

After 30 minutes:

• Did you find an example of your own framing?
• Did you compare how two sources framed the same event?
• Did you find a word choice that could have been different?
• Did you evaluate at least one example using your own judgment?
• Did you reflect on how you decide when framing crosses a line?

Want to Go Deeper?

You just practiced noticing framing choices — and making your own judgments about them.

Some framing felt fair. Some felt like it was hiding something. You had to decide which was which.

Now imagine a world where you can’t make that decision.

In George Orwell’s 1984, the Party doesn’t just frame things strategically — it controls language itself. Words that could express dissent are eliminated. The past is rewritten to match the present. There’s no second source to compare. There’s no way to notice the framing because there’s only ONE framing, ever.

The skill you just practiced — noticing choices, asking questions, making judgments — becomes impossible.

In “1984: 2+2=?”, you’ll:

• Read the novel while identifying how the Party controls language, information, and thought
• Discover tactics like Newspeak, doublethink, and the memory hole
• Connect what Orwell imagined to patterns you can observe today
• Create a project demonstrating YOUR analysis
• Use AI as a research partner — while maintaining your own judgment

You won’t be told what to conclude. You’ll practice the skill of noticing — and deciding for yourself.

The question at the heart of 1984: If you can’t compare framings, can’t check sources, can’t even think unapproved thoughts — how would you know what’s true?

You just practiced the skills that make that question answerable. In Oceania, those skills are crimes.

Start 1984: 2+2=? →

Why This Mini-Project Matters

For Everyone: Framing isn’t something that happens TO you. It’s something humans do — including you. The skill isn’t suspicion. It’s noticing. Once you notice framing choices, you can evaluate them. And once you can evaluate them, you can think for yourself.

This isn’t about “media bias” or “fake news.” Every source frames. Every person frames. The question is whether you notice — and whether you can judge for yourself when a framing serves understanding and when it doesn’t.

That’s the skill. And it’s rare.

This mini-project takes 30 minutes. The full project explores what happens when framing becomes control — over 6 weeks with 1984.