Public acceptance of industrial human-robot collaboration (HRC) is shaped by how risks and benefits are perceived by affected employees. Positive or negative media framing may shape and shift how individuals evaluate HRC. This study examines how message framing moderates the effects of perceived risks and perceived benefits on overall attributed value. In a pre-registered study, participants (N = 1150) were randomly assigned to read either a positively or negatively framed newspaper article in one of three industrial contexts (autonomy, employment, safety) about HRC in production. Subsequently, perceived risks, benefits, and value were measured using reliable and publicly available psychometric scales. Two multiple regressions (one per framing condition) tested for main and interaction effects. Framing influenced absolute evaluations of risk, benefits, and value. In both frames, risks and benefits significantly predicted attributed value. Under positive framing, only main effects were observed (risks: beta = -0.52; benefits: beta = 0.45). Under negative framing, both predictors had stronger main effects (risks: beta = -0.69; benefits: beta = 0.63) along with a significant negative interaction (beta = -0.32), indicating that higher perceived risk diminishes the positive effect of perceived benefits. Model fit was higher for the positive frame (R^2 = 0.715) than for the negative frame (R^2 = 0.583), indicating greater explained variance in value attributions. Framing shapes the absolute evaluation of HRC and how risks and benefits are cognitively integrated in trade-offs. Negative framing produces stronger but interdependent effects, whereas positive framing supports additive evaluations. These findings highlight the role of strategic communication in fostering acceptance of HRC and underscore the need to consider framing in future HRC research.