Steve Jackson	Survey of Communication Theory: Agenda Setting	- Home -
(Note: This paper was written at the University of South Carolina) by: Jess Matthews, Laura Dickert, and Nick Holliday. 28 September 1999   From the 1930's until the 1960's, mass communications studies focused mainly on the direct effects of the media. The researchers' work "revolved around a hypodermic needle model- a view that the media directly [injects] the public with attitudes which subsequently affect their behavior" (Emery, 169). However, these studies often disappointed the researchers, who hoped to find evidence of change in public opinion due to exposure to the mass media. The majority of results from these studies showed that the direct effects of the media are merely an occasional short-term attitude change (Iyengar, 227). The overall failure of this paradigm, or model, led to the development of what is known as the agenda-setting theory. In 1967, Matthew McCombs, assistant professor of journalism at UCLA, had an after-work drink at the Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles with a colleague. While watching the local news they discussed why a particularly poignant story did not have a startling effect on the public. McCombs teamed up with Donald Shaw in order to begin a study to better understand this phenomenon. This study researched the salience of news stories. McCombs and Shaw defined salience as the degree to which the public perceives an issue on the media agenda as important. This ranking of importance was titled the "hierarchy approach to agenda-setting research", or the agenda-setting theory. The agenda-setting theory focuses on the cognitive, indirect effects of the mass media. This theory has led mass communications researchers to study how media news coverage effects an issue's salience rather than the direct effects on audience members' attitudes and behavior. The agenda-setting theory states that "the media tell the audience not so much what to think as what to think about" (Bormann 35). In this way, the media is responsible for the pictures in an audience member's mind's eye. The media sets an agenda for what the people should think about, and the order of importance of these thoughts. For example, one radio talk show host admits that his listeners have "got to talk about what [he is] talking about or they don't get on [the air]" (Davis 75). The host is setting an agenda for what his listeners are to think about. However, the public agenda may influence the media as well. In this way, the agenda-setting theory is quite circular in nature. The agenda the media decides to follow must be of interest to its audience. To illustrate, another radio talk show host "will often bring up topics that [he] wasn't prepared to do" because "if that's what [the audience wants] to talk about, [he believes he's] there to kind of serve them and . . . give them what they want" (75). Therefore, the audience is somewhat responsible for what the media places "into [the audience's] heads" (Emery, 169). The people do have some control according to the agenda-setting theory. However, the one failing of the study was its neglect of the effects of time on an issue's salience. The longitudinal approach to agenda-setting was developed later on, in which changes over time in the prominence of issues was recorded. Other techniques were also developed to broaden the researchers' understanding of agenda setting, including framing. Framing theory suggests that the media places a frame of reference around its audience's thought processes. In summary, the agenda-setting theory "hypothesizes that issues prominently displayed and frequently emphasized in the mass media will be regarded as important by the media consumers" (Emery 170). The more coverage a story or issue receives in the media, the more important it will seem to the public. Also, the more important an issue is to the audience, the more coverage it will receive. There is a significant time lag in the time between when a story is considered salient and when it is no longer discussed. Generally, the audience cannot remember the frequently covered issues of past time sequences. When the agenda-setting theory is compared to what actually happens in media-public relationships, evidence of correlation is obvious. A recent example of agenda-setting would have to be the Monica Lewinsky scandal. One can see from that sequence of events the circular effects the media and public have on each other. An incident that was insignificant in the grand scheme of America's welfare monopolized hours of television broadcasts and pages of newspapers and magazines. The Lewinsky scandal became the predominant subject of coffee-break chatter around the country. The massive interest of the public caused the media to investigate new aspects of the scandal and give it more air time. The ultimate question then becomes: Did the constant coverage by the media cause the massive interest of the public and vice versa? Agenda-setting answers yes. It is worth noting an extension of sorts on the theory of agenda-setting. Agenda-setting, in its simplest form, says that media dictates what the people think about, not what the people think. It says that the agenda of the media is basically the agenda of the people. When Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw did their research on the presidential election of 1968, they compared the agendas of several media sources to the agenda of "the people (McCombs)." The people consisted of a lumped group of everyone interviewed in public opinion polls and the other ways the researchers had of gathering data. What is important to point out is that that study "was not an assertion of univeral, undifferentiated effects on all voters (McCombs)." Different voters had different issues that they believed were of the most importance, but as a group, the agenda generated matched the agenda of the media. The number of people most concerned with a particular issue correlated with the amount of precedence it was given in the media. Studies have shown that stronger links exist between increased prominence of an issue and increased knowledge of that issue instead of increased prominence and strong opinions. This is not surprising because increasing knowledge of a subject doesn't necessarily constitute increasing knowledge that would cause a change in opinion. We have established that the first real mention of agenda setting was implied by Walter Lippman in 1922 when he stated that the media is responsible for the "pictures in our heads" (Severin 1988). Since then, several applications have been made to society, and some questions have been asked concerning the validity of the theory. To state the obvious, the media takes matters in their own hands, adding a personal spin to every so-called "objective" issue. In a recent survey of PRWEEK/Business Wire journalists, 11% of the sample admitted to adding a personal slant to facts all of the time, 46.4% took a more cautious approach, only admitting to it "often", and a whopping 92.5% stated that they added a new angle at least sometimes. In addition, 72.3% said they "sometimes took information from press releases to support their own angle, 20% said they did this "very rarely" and 5.3% said they never did this. Most surprisingly, 89.2% of those interviewed tended to interpret and/or significance of the information for their readers, whereas only 10.4% presented information only (Leyland 1999). Have you had enough numbers yet? To explain the survey's relevance to agenda setting, this "spinning" of information is to find a new take on a subject or support the agenda the the journalist has, and the PR Pros prioritize information to emphasize positive, or in some cases, simply important aspects (Leyland 1999). In the words of Bernard Cohen, while "the press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, it is stunningly successful in telling readers what to think about" (Pember 1981). In real layman's terms, the media gurus know what they want to cover and what presses the buttons of the viewer, reader, or internet surfer, so they tend to find the information that makes the reader think what they want them to think. This, of course, raises questions in the minds of the media's objective audience. Does the press really govern conversation topics (Pember 1981)? If they can manipulate the public that much, could media essentially be used, instead of creating a violent society, for a change to more enlightened individuals? If the media has this much control over us, then why are they not using it for good? Several factors contribute to the amount of media attention an issue might receive. First of all, media attemps to adapt to the stream of events in society (Severin 1988). So if the public is hot on the subject of unsanitary conditions of public bathrooms, for example, the media would not go out of their way to run stories on the mating habits of hermit crabs, for the sheer fact that it would not attract attention from the public. Until they find something that will definitely fly, they feed the public exactly what they want to eat. This leads to the second factor: overreporting of significant but unusual events (Severin 1988). It is a similar to the first factor, but it plays on the publics attention to the more "dirty" aspects of society. For example, the media could run a story on the mayor of a small city that recently gave funds to clean up a local playground for kids, or they could run a story on the same mayor cheating on his wife and denying it. Given our society and time frame, which story would tend to get more coverage? PROBABLY the one that is more gossipy in nature. Thirdly, there is selective reporting of the newsworthy aspects of a non-newsworthy situation (Severin 1988). Again, this ties to the factor before it; if there is a situation that is normal at the surface level, and everything is perfect except for one flaw, the media tends to dig until they reach the flaw and exploit it. Take the same mayor from the small city mentioned earlier; what the media failed to mention is that he was HIGHLY qualified for the job, with a law degree from Harvard and twenty-five years of experience, and he has done the most for the city of any mayor since before the Civil War. Even so, his image was ruined because they picked the one "newsworthy", in this case, gossipy, fault, and the public automatically assumes there are more where that came from. Then there are "pseudoevents", or manufacturing of newsworthy events, including protests, demonstrations, sit-ins, and publicity stunts (Severin 1988). In a way, this could be taken as the public controls the media which controls the public, but then again, the media selects what they cover, so that would mean that the media DOES choose what the viewing area discusses, depending, of course, on the people's attention to the media. Lastly, there are event summaries, or situations that portray non-newsworthy events in a newsworthy way. For example, the 1964 report by the Surgeon General showing that a relationship existed between smoking and lung cancer (Severin 1988) the Surgeon General did not get much attention prior to the announcement, and probably not much afterward, and there were probably more announcements that were of public concern but did not get covered, but this was the one that the media chose to illuminate at that particular moment in time. Another issue altogether is the correlation between the theory of agenda setting and the cultivation theory of Gerbner. Depending on how broadly agenda setting is applied, it overlaps the cultivation theory (Agee 1982). Both agree that the media grows, so to speak, subjects of debate and conversation in the public, hence the name "cultivation theory". In the case of agenda setting, though, the "growing" is from a preconceived notion on the media's part concerning what SHOULD be discussed. Again, the validity of the theory depends on the extent to which it is taken (Severin 1988). As established, McCombs and Shaw were the creators of the theory now known as agenda setting. The creation stemmed from experiments regarding the elections of 1968 and 1972, both concerning Nixon. Research implied that swing voters less with agendas of a preferred candidate than they did with a composite agenda based on the priorities of all three candidates (Agee 1982). They also tended to accept those opinions affiliated with the editorial of their favorite newspaper. Other uses of agenda setting involved two groups one in the 60's and one in the 70's. In the 60's, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating committee played a part in putting racial discrimination in the national agenda. In the 70's, it was the National Organization of Women (NOW), and the feminist movement (Severin 1988). The press's control over public discussion can be traced to certain trends in "hot button" topics as well as purely what the press feels should be covered. Is the press in charge of conversation or are we? Only time will tell. Bibliography: Sevrein, Wermer J. and James W. Tankard, Jr. (1988) Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, Uses. Longman. Pember, Don R. (1981) Mass Media in America. Science Research Associates, Inc. Agee, Warren K., Phillip ault and Edwin Emery. (1982) Perspectives on Mass Communications. Harper & Row. Mass Media Research: an introduction. Wadsworth. Robinson, Scott. (1998) Is Agenda-Setting a Two Way Street?. Online. Available http://www.niu.edu/newsplac e/agenda2.html Kass, Martin. (1999) Online. Available http://wn t.cc.utevas.edu/~kas/agenda/Theory/issues_3.html. Emery, Michael and Ted Curtis Smythe. (1986) Readings in Mass Communications: Concepts and Issues in the Mass Media. Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Davis, Richard and Diana Owen. (1998) New Media and American Politics. Oxford University Press. Iyengar, Shanto and Richard Reeves. (1997) Do the Media Govern? Politicians, Voters, and Reporters in America. Sage Publications. Bormann, Ernest G. (1980) Communication Theory. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Conway, Kelly. (1999) Kelly's Discussion of Agenda-Setting. Online. Available http://oak.cats.ohiou .edu/~kc722196/kcas.htm. Smith, Andrew. (1999) Agenda Setting by John W. Kingdom: An Article Review by Andrew Smith. Online. Available http://www.tamu cc.edu/~whatley/PADM5302/theo13b.htm. McCombs, Maxwell. (1999) Agenda-Settings: Readings on Media, Public Opinion, and Policymaking. Online. Available http://www.erlb aum.com/html/2036.htm. McCombs, Maxwell. (1991) Contemporary Public Opinion: Issues and the News. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers. Weaver, David and Doris A. Graber and Maxwell E. McCombs and Chaim H. Eyal. (1981) Media Agenda-Setting in a Presidential Election: Issues, Images, and Interest. Praeger. Shaw, Donald L and Maxwell E McCombs. (1977) The Emergence of American Political Issues: The Agenda Setting Function of the Press. West Publishing Co. Leyland, Adam. (1999) Journalists: grudging respect for PR execs. Online. Available http://ww w.prweekus.com/us/news/archive/September271999.htm

This page design copyright 1999 by Steve N. Jackson.

Contents copyright 1999 by Steve N. Jackson and Authors.

 

 

Version 7.09 (19 July).