Very interesting question and I feel like there is something on the tip of my tongue. 

Derek Sivers discusses the role of the first follower: 

http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement?language=en

And Moscovici discusses the role of minority and majority influence, you may be able to find some things there. A quick google netted this result: 

https://books.google.com/books?id=u7l5AgAAQBAJ&dq=moscovici+framing&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Loftus and Palmer did a study in 1974 where they highlighted the effects of framing by using misleading language to affect the memory of the participants. 

http://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

Good luck in your search. 

Thank you both for your comments. It is hard to believe that such an obvious question has been ignored in the research on media effects. There is certainly some interesting research to do.

I believe you're certainly on to something here. I wonder whether we're looking in the wrong place - perhaps looking at the literature on the emergence of new issues may be one way (like e.g. horizon scanning, futures etc..); otherwise, how about the oscillatory nature of issue attention cycles, as by Nisbet & Huge, Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate - doi: 10.1177/1081180X06286701 , where you have at least some temporal thinking on all this, but you're right, haven't come across a word for the initial effect either, unless one would call it "creativity". Best, Johan

Bryant and Oliver in their book "Media Effects: advances in theory and research" (3rd ed. 2009, p. 25) have a short notice about the framing effect for unfamiliar issues, referring to an article by Tewksbury et al (Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77 (4) 2000: 804–29). However, I think they are overselling Tewksbury's conclusion. His study finds that attitudinal effects disappeared after 3 weeks but cognitive effects persisted.

Maybe Johan is right that we are looking in the wrong place. Maybe the literature on cognitive dissonance can contribute something? Or maybe the literature on scientific paradigms? I have often observed that people apply a wrong paradigm when trying to interpret a new and unfamiliar scientific text.

The difference between framing effects for new issues and familiar issues is that the latter produces more powerful effects while the former may produce medium, less powerful, or insignificant impact. Powerful effects are best as they also hook the audience for maximum advertising revenues.

      We also need to remember that framing theory belongs to the same family with the priming theory and the agenda- setting theory. They are more or less three- in- one or a trinity. For example, framing is vital for new issues especially breaking news, dramatic, or political issues in particular.

      On the other hand, familiar issues are better presented by priming or agenda setting. The universal truth is that all media effects can be attributed to framing effects. This is partly because all media coverage (eve scripted live coverage) effects are framed. Framing skills affect the effects.

     The editorial decision to cover the events, editing, audiences, or the limitations of the camera angles are important as they contribute to the effects with varying degrees (from insignificant to powerful) subject to audience surveys or opinion polls. Framing is the excellence of the media.

     The media effects may progressively decline with the audience familiarity with the known issues, therefore, all familiar or regular issues like news follow ups, running stories, routine, or general news; are likely to be more effective with the priming or agenda - setting strategies.

This question has now reached 500 reads, but still no clear answer. If anybody needs an interesting research project in media studies or social cognition, this is it.