Agenda Setting by Muhammad Shahbaz Dar

Agenda Setting Theory (From Centralized to Decentralized World): A critical essay
Submitted by: Muhammad Shahbaz (PhD-11-

2021)
Submitted to: Prof. Dr. Ashraf Khan
Origin:
In 1920 Walter Lippmann a Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist also known as father of modern
journalism coined the phrase “manufacture of consent” and argue about media a tool of
propaganda and its manner in which public opinion is shaped by selective reporting. On the basis
of this articulation (Lippmann, 1922:9-16) Maxwell MaxCombs & Donald Shaw developed a
mass media theory in 1968, known as Agenda Setting Theory.
Description:
“Not What to Think, But What to Think About”
The influence of media affects the presentation of the reports and issues made in the news that
affects the public mind. The news reports make it in a way that when a particular news report is
given importance and attention than other news the audience will automatically perceive it as the
most important news and information are given to them. The priorities of which news comes first
and then the next are set by the media according to how people think and how much influence
will it have among the audience. Theorists, Prof. Maxwell MaxCombs & Prof. Donald Shaw
developed these assumptions into theory with following algorithm for explaining Agenda
Setting.
1
2021)
‘Max McCombs and Donald Shaw Agenda-setting Algorithm’ Quatro, G. (30 Nov, 2014)
We are living in a world where millions of events are taking place simultaneously. Media
organizations and institutions have employed thousands of people to observe those events and
report them. The news media tell us which issues are important and which ones are not. The
media’s daily reports inform us about the latest events and changes taking place in the world
beyond our reach. As a result of this phenomenon, most of our perceptions about the world are a
second- hand reality created by the media organizations. There is no assurance and no guarantee
that this reality is an accurate picture of the world.
Media organizations do not just passively broadcast information repeating the words of the
official sources or conveying exactly the incidents of an event. They also do not select or reject
the day’s news in proportion to reality. Through their selection and display of the news stories,
the reporters and the editors focus their attention and influence the public’s perceptions of what
are the most important issues of the day. Our pictures of the world are shaped and refined in the
way journalists frame their news stories. This function of media is called the agenda-setting
function of media (McCombs 2002).
Core Aspects of Agenda Setting Theory:
It was a tremendous beginning of a new mass communications theory, which can be divided into
two aspects. The first aspect relates to the transmission of issue or object salience from the media
agenda to the public agenda. The second aspect tells us about the news media’s role in framing
those issues and objects in the minds of people. McCombs and Shaw (1972) tested the notion
that the mass media influence public perception about the important issues of the day through
their daily selection and display of the news in their news bulletin etc. Especially, they believed
2
2021)
that with the passage of time the priority issues of the news media organizations would become
the priority issues of the public. On the basis of above two aspects McCombs and Shaw made
following two assumptions:
1. Media Controls Reality: The mainstream media does not report the “reality”, it only
acts as a filter allowing some aspects of the “reality” to reach their audience while
blocking others.
2. Media Gives Topics Importance: The more the media reports on a certain issue, the
more likely is the public to perceive that particular issue as being of greater importance
than others.
Formulation:
According to theory developers there are two levels of agenda setting by the mass media:
First-Level Agenda Setting – This is the process through which the media filters events as
being worthy of being reported. It is characterized by object salience. An object in agenda setting
theory is the thing towards which our attention is directed. Salience refers to its impotence
relative to other objects. Thus, the more the media reports on a particular issue, the greater its
“object salience”.
Second-Level Agenda Setting – This is the process through which the media attempts to
influence how people think about certain issues, having already articulated what to think about in
the first level.
For instance, if the media reports more frequently on Justin Trudeau compared to other Canadian
or world leaders, it is object salience or first-level agenda-setting.
3
2021)
When the media lets us know that Justin Trudeau is a charming, 6ft2 man with auburn hair who
loves sharply cut suits and is socially progressive (as opposed to focusing on allegations of
corruption and judicial interference), this is attribute salience (or second-level agenda-setting)
where we are being told how to think about him.
Types of Agenda Setting:
Max McCombs, Rogers & Dearing (1972) identify three types of agenda setting made on the
assumptions those were based on awareness, priorities and salience models as:
Policy agenda setting, in which elite policy makers' agendas are, treated as the dependent
variable ("political agenda setting") also known as Public/ Audience agenda setting
Media agenda setting, in which the media's agenda is treated as the dependent variable ("agenda
building")
Public agenda setting, in which the public's agenda is the dependent variable (the traditional
hypothesis)
Development:
Concept of “framing” to the theory was added to this theory in 1998 by McCombs. This concept
argues that media can not only direct people on what to think about but also how to think about
an issue. It does so by focusing on a particular aspect of the news. For example, agenda setting
theory only describes the water scarcity of a place but framing theory talks about how the
government is causing water scarcity that defines how people take the issue to be the
government’s fault leading to development of another theory known as Second Level Agenda
Setting.
4
2021)
Framing does seem to include a broader range of cognitive processes – moral evaluations,
causal reasoning, appeals to principle, and recommendations for treatment of problems – than
does second-level agenda-setting (the salience of attributes of an object).
Scheufele and Tewksbury argue that "framing differs significantly from these accessibility-based
models [i.e., agenda setting and priming]. It is based on the assumption that how an issue is
characterised in news reports can have an influence on how it is understood by audiences;" the
difference between whether we think about an issue and how we think about it. Framing and
agenda setting differ in their functions in the process of news production, information processing
and media effects.
News production: Although "both frame building and agenda building refer to macroscopic
mechanisms that deal with message construction rather than media effects", frame building is
more concerned with the news production process than agenda building. In other words, "how
forces and groups in society try to shape public discourse about an issue by establishing
predominant labels is of far greater interest from a framing perspective than from a traditional
agenda-setting one."
News processing: For framing and agenda-setting, different conditions seem to be needed in
processing messages to produce respective effects. Framing effect is more concerned with
audience attention to news messages, while agenda setting is more concerned with repeated
exposure to messages.
Locus of effect: Agenda-setting effects are determined by the ease with which people can
retrieve from their memory issues recently covered by mass media, while framing is the extent to
which media messages fit ideas or knowledge people have in their knowledge store.
5
2021)
Based on these shared characteristics, McCombs and colleagues recently argued that framing
effects should be seen as the extension of agenda setting. In other words, according to them, the
premise that framing is about selecting "a restricted number of thematically related attributes"for
media representation can be understood as the process of transferring the salience of issue
attributes (i.e., second-level agenda setting). That is, according to McCombs and colleagues'
arguments, framing falls under the umbrella of agenda setting.
Scheufele & Tewksbury (2007) Priming is often discussed in tandem with agenda-setting theory.
The reason for this association is two-fold. The first, per Hastie & Park, is that both theories
revolve around salient information recall, operating on the idea that people will use information
that is most readily available when making decisions. The second, per Iyengar and Kinder, is that
priming is latter part of a two-fold process with agenda-setting that takes place over time. Once
agenda setting has made an issue salient, priming is the process by which "mass media can...
shape the considerations that people take into account when making judgments about political
candidates or issues". In short, both theories point to ease of accessibility of information in one's
mind but priming is something that can occur over a period of time after exposure to a given
media segment.
Preiss and Raymond W. (2006) Researchers also analyze the impact of political media priming
through News. Early findings indicated that political media served to prime audience members;
however researchers argue this is due to the increased availability over political media rather
than priming. Rather than analyzing media affecting what people think about, researchers
switched their focus to analyzing how political media affects perceived presidential performance.
Third-level agenda-setting: network agenda setting model
6
2021)
The most recent agenda-setting studies explore "the extent to which the news media can transfer
the salience of relationships among a set of elements to the public". That is, researchers assume
that the media can not only influence the salience of certain topics in public agenda, but they can
also influence how the public relate these topics to one another. Based on that, Guo, Vu and
McCombs (2012) bring up a new theoretical model called Network Agenda Setting Model,
which they refer to as the third-level agenda-setting. This model shows that "the news media can
bundle sets of objects or attributes and make these bundles of elements salient in the public's
mind simultaneously". In other words, elements in people's mind are not linear as traditional
approaches indicate; instead, they are interconnected with each other to make a network-like
structure in one's mind; and if the news media always mention two elements together, the
audience will "perceive these two elements as interconnected".
Agenda-melding
Another change of Agenda-setting Theory is known as agenda-melding, which focuses "on the
personal agendas of individuals vis-à-vis their community and group affiliations". This means
that individuals join groups and blend their agendas with the agendas of the group. Then groups
and communities represent a "collected agenda of issues" and "one joins a group by adopting an
agenda". On the other hand, agenda setting defines groups as "collections of people based on
some shared values, attitudes, or opinions" that individuals join. This is different from traditional
agenda setting because according to Shaw et al. individuals join groups in order to avoid social
dissonance and isolation that is also known as "need for orientation". Therefore, in the past in
order to belong people would learn and adopt the agenda of the group. Now with the ease of
access to media, people form their own agendas and then find groups that have similar agendas
that they agree with.
7
2021)
The advances in technology have made agenda melding easy for people to develop because there
is a wide range of groups and individual agendas. The Internet makes it possible for people all
around the globe to find others with similar agendas and collaborate with them. In the past
agenda setting was limited to general topics and it was geographically bound because travel was
limited.
Future:
“Dating with Technology & Social Media Filtering”
Advancement in technology especially information/ digital technology and
provision of internet at large through smart TV & smart phones; developing new dimensions for
influencing the masses. Global converge almost through all mediums of mass media of the
withdrawal of the Americans troops from Afghanistan is the recent example of the ultimate use
of this theory in present time as the news was reported in breathless coverage. However, it was
quite obvious for most people in most countries even for the Americans as there were
concomitantly pressing issues in their own lives such as the healthcare crisis, hurricane damage
and flooding in New York that took a backseat to the frantic coverage of the Taliban.
Social Media Filtering
Although the agenda-setting theory was initially conceptualized for mainstream media such as
TV and newspapers, in the 21st century, social media platforms and video sharing apps have
begun to take over the role of traditional news media.
8
2021)
media platforms such as Facebook have repeatedly been accused of filtering news posts in favor
of particular ideologies and thus shaping public opinion.
Sociological research has backed the view that portals such as Facebook fulfil both the
conditions of the agenda-setting theory in that they are selective in what they allow their
audiences to see.
Audiences that interact with political content on Facebook show an increased level of “issue
salience”, or believing that the particular issue shown prominently on Facebook is more
important than others (Feezell, 2017).
This causes people to retreat into their biased political bubbles where the agenda in their
newsfeeds is completely different to the agenda of people of differing political views.
Criticisms:
“Lippmann-Dewey Debate & Current Era”
This famous debate still persists in much the same way till today.
Criticism Explanation
It’s Hard to Since the agenda-setting theory deals with the inner beliefs and thoughts
Quantify of people (and how these are subtly influenced over time through the
media’s influence), it is difficult to objectively measure and quantify.
It’s Inapplicable to The agenda-setting theory does not apply to cases in which people already
Cases of have their minds made up on an issue. These people simply have their
Confirmation Bias views reinforced by what they see in the media, rather than having the
media influence them per se. In such cases, the media is merely
confirming an already existing bias rather than shaping opinion.
There’s Also Reverse agenda setting is the process through which public opinion shapes
9
2021)
Criticism Explanation
Reverse Agenda the media agenda rather than the other way around (Haarsager, 2009). In
Setting the classic Lippmann-Dewey debate, reverse agenda setting represents the
stance held by John Dewey that mass media, in fact, strengthens
democracy by empowering the masses. Twitter trends, viral videos, online
petitions, etc, are examples of reverse agenda-setting.
Since then a reasonable number of studies have been conducted on the agenda-setting theory.
Rogers, Dearing, and Bregman (1993) found 223 publications that directly or indirectly were
linked with agenda setting from 1922 to 1992. Most of them appeared after the year 1971, with
the climax years of publication (1977, 1981, 1987, 1991) each producing 17 to 20 items (Rogers
et al., 1993). Recently, a scholar Delwiche (2007) claimed in his article “Agenda Setting,
Opinion Leadership and the world of Web Logs” that the number of studies on agenda setting
has exceeded 350.
Agenda setting analysis has opened new dimensions in mass communication research. In most of
the research till now, a correlation between the media agenda and the public agenda has been
made. But there also are comparisons of different media agendas, of numerous political agendas
with the media agenda, and a number of agendas with policy agendas. In addition to this,
researchers have started thinking beyond the original domain of an agenda of issues to find new
dimensions in the traditional agenda-setting research. In the coming years of agenda-setting
research, hopefully, scholars will be exploring numerous new dimensions of the news agenda.
Conclusions:
10
2021)
Agenda-setting theory was first invented to explain the outsized influence of mass media on what
is “on the agenda” in public discourse.
Today, the theory is applied to examine the influence of social media networks and their
algorithms on what news we receive, and what the biases are of those news networks. It’s as
relevant as ever today when our divided news networks are causing social rifts between the
political left and right.
An advantage of new media, however, is that people can publish their own information online,
leading to a range of alternative news networks emerging, especially on YouTube. Furthermore,
platforms like Twitter allow us to give feedback to media companies, so we can set their agenda
rather than the other way around.
References:
Scheufele & Tewksbury (2007). "Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of
Three Media Effects Models". Journal of Communication. 57: 9–20
Preiss, Raymond W. (29 August 2006). Mass Media Effects Research: Advances Through
Meta-Analysis. Routledge. p. 726.
Feezell, J.T. (2017). Agenda setting through social media: The importance of incidental
news exposure and social filtering in the digital era. Political Research
Quarterly, 71(2), 482-494.
Haarsager, S. (2009). Choosing silence: A case of reverse agenda setting in depression era
news coverage. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,6(1),35-46.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. Greenbook Publications.
11
2021)
Nearly Half the World Lives on Less than $5.50 a Day (2018) World
Bank https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/nearly-half-the-
world-lives-on-less-than-550-a-day
McCombs, M, (2002), News Influence on our pictures of the World, in Media Effects edited
by Bryant, J. and Zillman, D. UK: Lawerence Erlbaum Publishers.
Rogers, E.M., Dearing, J.W. & Bregman, D. (1993). The anatomy of agenda setting
research, Journal of Communication, 43. (pp 68- 84).
Wanta, Wayne & Ghanem, Salma I. (2006). Effects of agenda setting. Pp. 37-52 in
Preiss, R., Gayle, B, M., Burrell, N., Allen, M. & Bryant, J., eds. Mass media
theories and processes: Advances through meta-analysis. Mahwah, N. J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum
12

Agenda Setting by Muhammad Shahbaz Dar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agenda Setting by Muhammad Shahbaz Dar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agenda Setting Theory (From Centralized to Decentralized World): A critical essay

Submitted by: Muhammad Shahbaz (PhD-11-

Agenda Setting Theory (From Centralized to Decentralized World): A critical essay

mass media theory in 1968, known as Agenda Setting Theory.

that this reality is an accurate picture of the world.

function of media (McCombs 2002).

Core Aspects of Agenda Setting Theory:

following two assumptions:

the first level.

or world leaders, it is object salience or first-level agenda-setting.

where we are being told how to think about him.

Types of Agenda Setting:

does second-level agenda-setting (the salience of attributes of an object).

and media effects.

arguments, framing falls under the umbrella of agenda setting.

Third-level agenda-setting: network agenda setting model

audience will "perceive these two elements as interconnected".

that they agree with.

“Dating with Technology & Social Media Filtering”

Advancement in technology especially information/ digital technology and

Social Media Filtering

begun to take over the role of traditional news media.

of particular ideologies and thus shaping public opinion.

important than others (Feezell, 2017).

newsfeeds is completely different to the agenda of people of differing political views.

“Lippmann-Dewey Debate & Current Era”

has exceeded 350.

dimensions in the traditional agenda-setting research. In the coming years of agenda-setting

is “on the agenda” in public discourse.

political left and right.

leading to a range of alternative news networks emerging, especially on YouTube. Furthermore,

rather than the other way around.

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. Greenbook Publications.

You might also like