Agenda Setting Function Theory: 1970s

The media cannot tell us what to think but it can tell us what to think about.

This theory is defined as the process whereby the mass media determine what we think and talk about. In other words, the media can ‘set agendas’ or terms of reference of any discussion be it social, political or economical.

How can the media set agendas? The process which the media uses to control our access to news, information and entertainment is known as ‘gate keeping.’ The media can set the agenda about what is discussed through the process of selection and omission. A producer of a TV news program, for example, can decide what stories to cover by ‘selecting’ certain stories over others; they also decide what is omitted by leaving out other stories. The media can also give one side of the story far more prominence (selection) while downplaying or omitting the opposing point of view.

For example, years back a current affair show did a story on a family in which the three adult children were unemployed. The family was portrayed as ‘dole bludgers’ who made no serious effort to get jobs. The producers selected footage of the children which showed them in a negative light and chose music and images which reinforced the idea that they were lazy no-hopers. The producers of the show also omitted the family’s side of the story. There was no serious examination of the problems of unemployment and the difficulty of finding work.

One of the major concepts underpinning this theory is that people can read texts in a number of different ways. According to this theory, the majority of the public will accept the dominant or preferred reading of the text. What this means is that if the media tells the public that a certain fact is the truth or that an issue should be understood in a certain way (‘all unemployed people are dole bludgers’), the majority of the population who read/listen/watch will get that intended message and will understand.The minority of the population will see the text as being untruthful or inaccurate. They have negative or oppositional reading to the text. Some people will negotiate a meaning from the text. A negotiated reading is where people have mixed feelings about the text; they may agree with some of the messages; but not with others. They will decide what parts of the text are relevant and what are not.

• Watch a current affair show like A Current Affair or Today Tonight. Closely analyse one of the stories. How has this story been presented? What information has been selected and what has been omitted? Has the producer taken sides? What is the dominant reading of the story?

• Do you think a current affair program or an advertisement would be more effective in setting a sunsmart agenda with the target group? Discuss.

"The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about."
Bernard C. Cohen, 1963[1]

The Agenda-setting theory is the theory that the mass-news media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them. Agenda-setting theory’s central axiom is salience transfer, or the ability of the mass media to transfer importance of items on their mass agendas to the public agendas.

History

Foundation

The Media agenda is the set of issues addressed by media sources and the public agenda which are issues the public consider important (Miller, 2005). Agenda-setting theory was introduced in 1972 by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in their ground breaking study of the role of the media in 1968 presidential campaign in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. [2]

The theory explains the correlation between the rate at which media cover a story and the extent that people think that this story is important. This correlation has repeatedly been shown to occur.

In the dissatisfaction of the magic bullet theory, many researchers began to study not how the media directly shaped individuals, but how the media shaped issues, particularly concerning political issues (Miller, 2005). Agenda-setting theory gave way that the press has some power, but individuals still are free to make their own decisions. Journalist Walter Lippman in his 1922 book Public Opinion raised the idea that the mass media create images of events in our minds, calling them "the pictures in our heads." Theodore White, a political analyst, studied how the media shaped political campaigns and concluded that the media shaped the way the public talk and think about political campaigns. Years later, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw introduced agenda-setting theory in the Public Opinion Quarterly. The theory was derived from their study that took place in Chapel Hill, NC, where the researchers surveyed 100 undecided voters during the 1968 presidential campaign on what they thought were key issues and measured that against the actual media content. The ranking of issues was almost identical. The conclusions matched their hypothesis: The mass media positioned the agenda for public opinion by emphasizing specific topics (Hamm, 1998). Subsequent research on agenda-setting theory provided evidence for the cause-and-effect chain of influence being debated by critics in the field. One particular study made leaps to prove the cause-effect relationship. The study was conducted by Yale researchers, Shanto Iyengar, Mark Peters, and Donald Kinder. The researchers had three groups of subjects fill out questionnaires about their own concerns and then each group watched different evening news programs, each of which emphasized a different issue. After watching the news for four days, the subjects again filled out questionnaires and the issues that they rated as most important matched the issues they viewed on the evening news (Griffin, 2005). The study demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship between media agenda and public agenda. Since the theory’s conception, more than 350 studies have been performed to test the theory. The theory has evolved beyond the media's influence on the public's perceptions of issue salience to political candidates and corporate reputation (Carroll & McCombs, 2003).

[

Functions of Theory

The agenda-setting function has multiple components

1. Media Agenda - issues discussed in the media (newspapers, television, radio)

2. Public Agenda - issues discussed and personally relevant to members of the public

3. Policy Agenda - issues that policy makers consider important (legislators)

4. Corporate Agenda - issues that big business and corporations consider important (corporate)

These four agendas are interrelated. Two basic assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting: (1) The press and the media do not reflect reality, they filter and shape it; (2) media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.

Characteristics

Characteristics: research has focused on characteristics of audience, the issues, and the media that might predict variations in the agenda setting effect.

  • Need for Orientation: Research done by Weaver in 1977 suggested that individuals vary on their need for orientation. Need for orientation is a combination of the individual’s interest on the topic and uncertainty about the issue. The higher levels of interest and uncertainty produce higher levels of need for orientation. So the individual would be considerably likely to be influenced by the media stories (psychological aspect of theory) (Miller, 2005).
  • Issue Obtrusiveness: Research performed by Zucker (1978) suggested that an issue is obtrusive if most members of the public have had direct contact with it, and less obtrusive if audience members have not had direct experience. This means that agenda setting results should be strongest for unobtrusive issues because audience members must rely on media for information on these topics (Miller, 2005).

[edit] Various Levels of Agenda Setting

  • First-level agenda setting This is the level that is most traditionally studied by researchers. In this level the media use objects or issues to influence the public. In this level the media suggest what the public should think about (amount of coverage).
  • Second-level agenda setting. In this level the media focuses on the characteristics of the objects or issues. In this level the media suggest how the people should think about the issue. There are two types of attributes: cognitive (subtantative, or topics) and affective (evaluative, or positive, negative, neutral).
  • Intermedia agenda setting (salience transfer among the media) (Coleman and Banning 2006; Lee 2005; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996).

Important Concepts

  • Gatekeeping -- Control over the selection of content discussed in the media; what the public know and care about at any given time is mostly a product of media gatekeeping.
  • Priming -- Effects of particular, prior context on retrieval and interpretation of information. The media's content will provide a lot of time and space to certain issues, making these issues more accessible and vivid in the public's mind (Miller, 2005).
  • Framing -- Framing is a process of selective control over media content or public communication. Framing defines how a certain piece of media content is packaged so it will influence particular interpretations. This is accomplished through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration. This is central to second-level agenda setting.

Usage of Theory

  • political advertising
  • political campaigns and debates
  • business news and corporate reputation (Carroll & McCombs, 2003)
  • business influence on federal policy (Berger, 2001)
  • legal systems, trials (Ramsey & McGuire, 2000)
  • role of groups, audience control, public opinion
  • public relations (Carroll & McCombs, 2003)

Strengths of Theory

  • It has explanatory power because it explains why most people prioritize the same issues as important.
  • It has predictive power because it predicts that if people are exposed to the same media, they will feel the same issues are important.
  • It can be proven false. If people aren’t exposed to the same media, they won’t feel the same issues are important.
  • Its meta-theoretical assumptions are balanced on the scientific side.
  • It lays groundwork for further research.
  • It has organizing power because it helps organize existing knowledge of media effects.

Limitations

  • Media users may be as ideal as the theory assumes. People may not be well-informed, deeply engaged in public affairs, thoughtful and skeptical. Instead, they pay casual and intermittent attention to public affairs, often ignorant of the details.
  • For people who have made up their minds, the effect is weakened.
  • News cannot create and conceal problems. The effect can merely alter the awareness, priorities and salience people attached to a set of problems.

Agenda Setting Theory

the creation of what the public thinks is important

History and Orientation

Agenda setting describes a very powerful influence of the media – the ability to tell us what issues are important. As far back as 1922, the newspaper columnist Walter Lippman was concerned that the media had the power to present images to the public. McCombs and Shaw investigated presidential campaigns in 1968, 1972 and 1976. In the research done in 1968 they focused on two elements: awareness and information. Investigating the agenda-setting function of the mass media, they attempted to assess the relationship between what voters in one community said were important issues and the actual content of the media messages used during the campaign. McCombs and Shaw concluded that the mass media exerted a significant influence on what voters considered to be the major issues of the campaign.

Core Assumptions and Statements

Core: Agenda-setting is the creation of public awareness and concern of salient issues by the news media. Two basis assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting: (1) the press and the media do not reflect reality; they filter and shape it; (2) media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues. One of the most critical aspects in the concept of an agenda-setting role of mass communication is the time frame for this phenomenon. In addition, different media have different agenda-setting potential. Agenda-setting theory seems quite appropriate to help us understand the pervasive role of the media (for example on political communication systems).

Statement: Bernard Cohen (1963) stated: “The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.”

Conceptual Model

Agenda-setting

Source: McQuail & Windahl (1993)

Favorite Methods

Content-analysis of media, interviews of audiences.

Scope and Application

Just as McCombs and Shaw expanded their focus, other researchers have extended investigations of agenda setting to issues including history, advertising, foreign, and medical news.

Example

McCombs and Shaw focused on the two elements: awareness and information. Investigating the agenda-setting function of the mass media in the 1968 presidential campaign, they attempted to assess the relationship between what voters in one community said were important issues and the actual content of media messages used during the campaign. McCombs and Shaw concluded that the mass media exerted a significant influence on what voters considered to be the major issues of the campaign.

Prof. Leckenby

Adv 382J

February 20, 2002

What is agenda setting?

According to Ghorparde, “agenda setting is a relational concept that specifies a transfer of salience from agenda primers (media) to agenda adopters (consumers)” (1986 p. 23). Agenda setting research has shown that there is a correlation between what the media deems important and salience in the public mind. In simpler terms, agenda setting claims that what the media finds important will eventually be mirrored in what people think are important. It is important to note that the notion of agenda setting is positive association between the media and the audience. From agenda setting stems the formation of public opinions and the distribution of pros and cons of a particular issue. “Agenda-setting shifts the focus of attention away from immediate effects on attitudes and opinions to longer term effects on cognitions” (Protess & McCombs 1991). The notion of agenda setting relies on the transfer of issues from the media to the public.

The origins of agenda setting theory

Traditionally, agenda setting theory explores the relationship the news media has on the perceived salience of key political issues. But it is important to note that the transfer of salience between media and the public should not be limited to a single aspect of the mass communication process. McCombs and Shaw empirically tested this theory during the 1972 presidential campaign between Helms and Hunt. They wanted to try and show that the media has the ability to influence what issues people think, about even if it doesn’t tell people what to think of those particular issues.