News media reports of medical studies typically support the traditional public health crisis frame, which describes fatness as inherently unhealthy and under personal control. Less often, news articles emphasize the Health at Every Size (HAES) perspective that fatness is not inherently unhealthy and is largely beyond individual control. Messages supporting and challenging the acceptability of stigmatizing fatness also routinely appear (pro-vs. antistigma frames). We tested whether these competing frames affect attitudes toward fat people. Across 3 experiments (N ϭ 2,964), adults completed survey measures after reading constructed news articles describing competing frames of fatness. Compared with people who read fat-positive frames (healthy, uncontrollable, antistigma), people who read fat-negative frames (unhealthy, controllable, prostigma) expressed more belief in the health risks of being fat (ds ϭ 0.90 -1.05), skepticism that women categorized as overweight or obese can be healthy at their weights (ds ϭ 0.51-.65), intentions to diet if they gained weight (ds ϭ 0.23-0.41), support for charging obese people more for health insurance (ds ϭ 0.26 -0.77), antifat attitudes (ds ϭ 0.19 -0.45), negative judgments of fat people (ds ϭ 0.17-0.19), support for weight-based job discrimination and prejudice (ds ϭ 0.36 -0.66), and less willingness to celebrate body-size diversity (ds ϭ 0.35-0.71). However, adding antistigma messages to public health crisis frames somewhat tempered the expression of prejudice. We conclude that news media frames have immediate impacts on weight-related attitudes.