The Three Vs in the name stand for the three types of characters that tend to be described in the story: a VICTIM who was harmed, a VILLAIN who allegedly harmed the victim, and a VINDICATOR who is acting on behalf of the victim.
The central dramatic questions in every Three Vs story are:
Unlike the Horserace Frame, stories told in the Three Vs frame connote strong value judgments that the audience easily understands. Even if the media gives all sides “equal time,” by the time the story is completed the audience has a firm grasp on the nature of the “Victimization” that occurred and understands the side the reporter believes the audience should take.
The structure of the story – and the assignment of the Victim, Villain and Vindicator roles – also communicates to the audience the values the reporter believes the audience should use in judging the story’s facts.
The Three Vs Frame is the basic structure the media uses when covering crime, conducting investigative stories, and advocating for consumers. Stories about government and politics also use the Three Vs frame when the focus of the story is on harm rather than competition or control.
Once the media defines the Villain in a Three Vs story, it is very difficult to change. Institutional momentum and inertia among the media, the fear of admitting a mistake, and the tendency to recast or ignore facts to fit the frame, all work against a person or group that has been defined as the Villain in a Three Vs story.
In investigative and consumer affairs stories, the media outlet places itself in the role of Vindicator on behalf of the story’s Victims. Producing – and promoting – this type of story is one of the primary ways the media tries to prove its value to its audience.
When the media assumes the role of Vindicator on behalf of a Victim and against a Villain, they trumpet every new piece of information they find that validates their point of view.
