Theory of Agenda-Setting - Essay Example

Media Effect The agenda-setting effect of news media coverage is a complex and underlying process on the basis of which the theory of the same was developed in the 20th century. Mass media influences public opinion greatly and even to the extend at which it can be called not only an effect done to the public consciousness but a development of some estimate opinion and therefore forming of consciousness. According to the numerous research, articles and journalistic investigations the mentioned theory shows itself more and more as reality which broadens the sphere of its influence to the far greater perspective than just general elections which, nevertheless, is the most important sphere of its influence. It is more than obvious that general elections of any kind effect everything that goes on in any country. The research of the recent issue started when Walter Lippman in his 1922 book stated that everything that public opinion reflect and embody information and data that it receives from news media sources (Lippmann, 1922). From that it is only one step to the fact/theory/truth that public view on the matter of political, economic, and social issues shaped by the mass media which decides what information is worth giving observation. More than that it is not only the information that is given to public by mass media but the way it is given which will be described further as one of two aspects of the same theory with one being agenda-setting and the other one known as framing or applicability. Further development of the idea brought by Lippman happened in the 1960s or 1968 to be precise, the year Bobby Kennedy was killed. Journalists Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw laid the foundation of the theory with their observation of the 1968 president elections. Asking people in Chapel Hill which is in North Carolina they came to the understanding that mass media coverage correlated greatly with the public opinion and people mostly talked about things that they heard on the TV or radio and not the facts or events comprehension which they somehow developed themselves. Basing on Lippman’s statement they statistically proved the existing of strong interdependence and significant interconnection between the public and news media coverage of some exact issues with shadowing or not saying anything about the others. In other words they come to comprehension that if news media gives people what to think about it is exactly media that indirectly forms and shapes public opinion on the matter of the most important national and global events. Afther the 1968’s starting point theory of agenda-setting continued to grow and develop in different forms. In the era of internet it jumped on the whole new level with every user in the social media now having an ability to pass, create and receive information. Still news media coverage consisting of different numerous journalists and news resources unconsciously rejects some of the issues and gives others all the attention. Very popular and widespread question “what do you think this country’s main problem now” in social quiz shows that most of the people talk about exactly the things that were mentioned in the news media quite often exactly before or after such social quiz has been held. In other words if media decides what people know it is logical that media not only shapes, forms and affects public opinion but stands at the core of its existence and therefore without news media there wouldn’t be any information which is close to the truth. Important to add that “agenda” that stands in the name of the theory is not really and agendas in the full meaning of this word because everything happens accidentally as information flows from different sources and numerous journalists, observers and informants and therefore the “agenda” is not intentional but accidental. But it is noted that, for example, in the Great Britain certain newspaper for years and decades were sympathizing either Conservative’s or Labourists parties which can serve as a warning that news media effect on the public opinion with right approach can be directed in the way useful for some people and harmful to others. There are two main schemes, types or kinds of news media influence on the public opinion. Agenda-setting is only one of them which, as was mentioned before, covers some issues while shadowing or ignoring others and therefore restricts the access to the information which in other case could provide some visible effect if a person would know about it. Agenda setting is also known as accessibility theory. Another one is known as framing or applicability. Framing deals with the information that is already known to person in the moment of its representation. Framing makes pre-existing information look different using methods like moral, ethical or essential reasoning and broadening the perspective of this information. Above that framing can put some information in other context and by that expand already existed before information with some new aspects and therefore change person’s opinion on the matter of things that were known to him or her before (Protess & Mccombs). In any media influence on the public mind time is of the great essence. Every study about the agenda-setting states that time is needed for public to receive, rethink and comprehend information after which the conclusions should be made. Therefore any effect in the both agenda-setting or framing shows itself with time. It is also so not only because time guarantees that some informational details will be delivered to the wider public but also because with time news media sees in what information public is interested and what issues pass by it without notice (McCombs, 2014). Here we slowly come to the interesting interconnection between media and public because despite the fact that media always try to make a sensation it is not every time that people react with equal reaction. Those who even slightly know some historical aspects of media and journalism will easily remember how some dishonest informational gatherers in the times without sensational events made up their own sensations from the thin air. Keeping that in mind and not forgetting about the fact that each and every newspaper has its first headline it will be fair to say that sometimes what meant to be a sensation cannot be considered so in real. From here it is close to the factual interdependence and correlation between public opinion and media which shows itself in their ability to affect each other. Public opinion’s concern dictates what media should cover. Otherwise or most simply it is the basic rule of consumer economics: demand creates offer. If people want to hear something about the candidate’s in president opinion on the matter of education then news media will observe exactly the educational point of the candidate’s electoral platform. But taking in consideration human nature and psychological aspect of the issue it comes to light that media is a more organized and classified structure. Therefore media influence is way more powerful and direct than public demands. Two sides of the media influence on the public opinion can be described as “what to think about” and “how to think about”. As here we are talking about the first one which is called agenda-setting it is necessary to add that moral and ethical responsibility plays more important role in the framing side of the media influence while in our case the most significant factor is attention given to some of the information. It is exactly attention that stands as a cornerstone of the whole theory. Some political aspect during the general elections can be ignored or given some little space in the issue of newspaper or TV spotlight while the other ones could be more seriously looked into which makes people think about some of them and not think about others (Dearing & Everett 1996). People think about what they hear most about and the process which can also be directed by the public is nevertheless started by media as media is the beginning point of the chain or mechanism of informational and exchange. If the panoptic summary of all agenda-setting theories and research could somehow be developed it should necessary contain the psychological concept which will describe the way people react on the information and help to spread it further. After all if not for media people would know less and so if something is not covered it is not intentional (in the most cases) but just accidental as it is impossible to cover all the issues and even more impossible to present them all in the same light. Thinking like this the best scenario would be to eliminate any accents and give all the possible information without proper consideration of what is important and what is not with each event be it car accident with president’s wife or huge corruption in the ministry of affairs equal attention. That is not possible and that is also an absurd. At this point recent condition shows itself more or less fair and overall good or bad shape of media and public awareness relies greatly on the public itself and honesty of the people who demand and produce news. Some examples are needed to show that more or less the discussed here theory applies to reality. In Argentina agenda-setting characteristics could be observed in 1997 at the legislative elections in the Metropolitan area of Buenos Aires. The statistical correlation between the news media coverage and public opinion weeks before elections has been modest with rating +40 (from 100) but days before and most of all during the election day it increased two times to the +80. It is important to add that psychological aspect of the agenda-setting theory allows to conclude that most people obviously either are not interested in the news, politics and social issues at all or they don’t like to look, be and feel unaware which makes them look for orientation (it is exactly need of orientation that by Maxwell McCombs is the most significant psychological gfactor in the theory) so they would feel that their judgment, their vote and their opinion at all could be argumentative, proof-based, rational and logical (McCombs, 2014). In other words when long before elections in Buenos-Aires people haven’t been interested in the elections and news coverage (more or less) at the time of elections they desired to make their choice backed by some groundings and their need of orientation became obvious basing on the statistical variables. Another example is Britain’s last decade which shows great correspondence between the public interest in the international issues and news media coverage of the same issue by “The Times”. The correlation was measured by McCombs’ as +54 (McCombs, 2014). Research considering the whole 1960s period on the example of the Gallop Poll’s question about the country’s most important issue showed strong resemblance between the media coverage in magazines and newspapers and public opinion which variables indicated as +78. Considering all the mentioned factors it can’t be denied that public opinion is shaped greatly by the news media coverage. Keeping in mind that average people can’t pay equal attention to all the information just as it can’t be done by the journalists some medium point brings to attention what is important for the masses and therefore should be covered. Agenda-setting theory backed up by the 50 years of research activity nowadays seems like a factual consistent pattern. As for the future of this theory in the age of the social media represented by internet it would be reasonable to continue the research on this sphere in order to provide a knowledge on whether it still will be media that influences society or society that influences media and which influence would be more powerful in the times when each person could be a journalist that provide information to the world web and decides by himself which information to use and which to ignore. Bibliography Dearing, J., Everett, R. Agenda-Setting. Chicago: SAGE Publications, 1996, print Lippmann, W. Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan, 1922. Print. McCombs, M. Setting the Agenda: Mass Media and Public Opinion. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2014, print Protess, D., Mccombs, M. Agenda Setting: Readings on Media, Public Opinion, and Policymaking. Chicago: Erlbaum, 1991, print Read More