Agenda Setting and Analysis of Social Problems - Essay Example

 Agenda Setting Introduction Agenda setting is the creation of public concern and awareness of salient issues by news media. It is also defined as all the issues that perceived by citizens to be worthy of attention by public authorities. Types of agenda include media agenda. Media agenda are all issues brought into the public light by the media. Media agenda is presented to the public in form of print such as newspaper articles, journals, and magazines. Media agenda is also presented electronically through television, radio and the internet. Mass communication plays a vital role in communicating information that affects the public. It also reminds the public of the past events and occurrences that concern the public. Mass media is capable of changing the views of the public and sensitize them about the decisions made by public authorities (Protess and McCombs 1991) Citizen agenda is the set of issues that are considered valuable by the citizens of a particular country. To measure citizens’ agenda, polling questions are used. However, the procedure and methodology of the polling process might compromise the integrity and reliability of the polls. Institutional or formal agenda are set of issues that are considered serious by particular institutions. Institutional comprises of matters that by institutional stakeholders to make decisions that solve problems that directly or indirectly affect the institutions. The agendas included issues affecting governmental institutions and non-governmental institutions. Another type of agenda is the systemic agenda that encompasses all issues that concern general public and the mass media based on the decisions made by the public authorities. Analysis of Social Problems. Social problems are issues that negatively affect the state of being of individuals in the society. A social problem has two elements that include subjective concerns and objective condition of the problem. An objective condition of a social problem includes all the aspects the problem that can be viewed without any biasness. Subjective concerns are issues that are affect and individual based on their biasness to particular points of view. Subjective concerns create differences with solving problems in the society. The formation opposing groups in a society is due to the subjective concerns of individuals in the society (Gandy1982). Objective conditions have enlightened people in societies such that they have reformulated human conditions. Through intelligence by humankind, complex problems that seemed unsolvable are solved in the modern societies. Social reformers developed empirical analysis that has formed the basis for political science and social science. Positivists were empowered by the strength of facts. For instance, Florence Nightingale and William Beveridge believed that use of scientific researches was essential in solving social problems in our societies. Nightingale was convinced that doctrines are not very important as facts are. Facts do not hold uncertainties that make the process of making decisions harder and complicated. The other view of positivists in regard to problems is by perceiving social problems as dysfunctions. Other people against the views of the society define things as acceptable or unacceptable. Things in the society might be accepted by the society but they are not morally acceptable. This is because the society does not have the power to reject the views. However, the society may coexist peaceful with the unacceptable behaviors since every society is comprised of all characters, good and bad. This is where public authority comes in. Public authorities take legal actions against those who go against the accepted behaviors in the society (Protess and McCombs 1991). Social problems in the society require social analysis to make decisions on their elimination. Recognizing the existence of problems in the society helps in the correction of the problems through decision making and implementation of the decisions. The dysfunctions have to be solved and might be solved. This positivist view of problems in the society presumes that the existence of social problem in the society is based on objective facts in the texture of society. This objective condition perceived as a threat to social order in the society. Sociologists have the responsibility of identifying problems in the society and correcting them by sensitizing the society and mobilizing it to make problem-solving decisions. Recognizing and analyzing problems in the society gives the sociologist the satisfaction that they have accomplished scientific missions. Knowledge acquired in the process of analyzing social problems is used by the society to aid it in the present and the future or kept in the archives of scientific records (Gandy 1982). Richard Fuller in late 1930s proposed that the positivists’ view of social problems was not corrective since social problems cannot be based entirely on objective conditions. Social problems have some degree of subjectivity which is ignored by positivists. Normally human beings have personal interests in every issue that arises in their societies. The interests that accompany social problems form the basis of analyzing social problems in a constructivist’s approach further. Fuller was supported in the 70s by Herbert Blumer developed the constructivist approach to social problems. Blumer based his arguments on the recurrent cycles of social problems in the society. The existence of problems in the society is due to the subjectivity of the people in the society that leads to formation of groups. Groups are formed in the society by people with common interests in the society that might not be objective conditions but rather due to the subjectivity of the groups. Collective definitions are critical in the termination of social problems. The two constructivists concur that positivists approach to social problems does not recognize the presence of subjectivity that is associated with social problems in the society. Blumer developed five stages of analyzing social problems. The first stage analyses the emergence of social problems. According to Blumer, social problems do not result from the intrinsic malfunction of our societies, but rather the collective view of issues in the society as problems. People in the society perceive some issue as problems and they go ahead complicating matters by defining them as problems. This is due to the subjectivity that is raised by the influential members of the society who could have other interests in the issues. The society reacts to issues raised by groups as social problems by accepting or rejecting them. The acceptance or rejection is due to the influence of the groups or individuals that raise the issues so long as they are not objective in nature. The subjectivity of an issue may lead to its acceptance or rejection as social problem in the society despite having high degree of objectivity. If an issue is raised by the influential figures or groups in the society, it automatically becomes a problem to the society. A society may also experience harmful conditions but not transform them to social problems. Harmful conditions might be considered social problems in one society but considered as no problems in other societies. Legitimation of a problem by the society occurs after the problem is recognized by the entire society as worthy of consideration. The process of legitimation is supported by the initial stages of the problem emergence. Upon successful recognition by many members of the society, the problem must be supported by many members of the society if it is to become legitimate. The support offered by the members of the society is known as social endorsement. The problem must acquire a substantial amount of respect from people in the society to proceed to higher stages of its endorsement and legitimization. If the problem does not get the respect, it is highly likely to fail. Asserted problems might never get recognition by the society despite the efforts of those who raised the problem in the society. The problem might not be even considered at all by the society. This is because of many reasons that block its recognition as a social problem. Among the reasons include the influence of those who raised the problem and the concurrence of the interests of people in the society. Upon successful legitimization of a problem, people in the society start mobilizing the society mobilization people to act on the social problem. Decision making after mobilization of the people in a society is heavily dependent on the effort and strategies used in mobilization process. During the mobilization process, the problem becomes a subject of discussions with divergent ideas, controversies, and to some extent causing arguments. Clash of ideas, exchange of words, demonstrations, and formation of activism groups takes place in this stage. The process of mobilization is also characterized by distortion of claims and exaggeration of ideas. Those who are against the implementation of solutions usually try many strategies to distort the message being put across by the activists. Activists on the other hand, may be forced to exaggerate ideas to emphasize the importance of their actions. Therefore, opponents are also involved in the mobilization process to counter the efforts of the proponents. The whole society is thus drawn into the debates and movements despite the opposing ideas. After the vigorous period of mobilizations, the society comes to a conclusion on whether to solve the problems or not. This is the decision making stage where an official plan on the course of action to be taken is formulated. It is characterized by a plan to take actions against the problems in the society. The problem could be matters on security, health, education, or development and infrastructure. The plan is created by accommodating all stakeholders through a bargain procedure. All members of the society are involved in the formulation of the framework to solve the problem. Suggestions on methods of implementing solutions are accepted in the process of creating the plan. The official plan enacted by the society has an official definition of the problem. It consists of the perceptions of the society regarding the problem and how it impacts on the whole society. The plan exposes things that were not recognized by the positivists in the society (Gandy 1982). After formation of a plan to solve the social problems in the society, the society now proceeds to the implementation of the plan. The implementation of the plan is guided by the definitions of the problem with supervision from the chosen representatives from both sides. It outlines the course of action and the benefits of implementing the plan. Those against the chosen solutions to the problems strive to make the implementation process unsuccessful. Those who might be favored by the plan try their best to get more out of the implementation process to make the solutions even more advantageous. Critics argue that the constructivist approach by Blumer is not appropriate because it favors the subjective element of a problem more than the objective element of the problem. They indicate that the objective element of a problem should be considered first then the individuals in the society with subjective ideas. They further argue that sociologists must study not only objective and subjective elements of social problems but also the people involved in making judgments of social problems. This way, they can identify the validity of subjective ideas of social problems (Rasch and Tsebelis 2011). Constructing Public Problems The construction of public problems is aided by knowledge of the existing issues and how the can be defined into problems. People in a society might experience problems but they do not have sufficient knowledge to define the problems. NBC devised three ways in which people in a society raise problems in the society. The first method is by naming the problem. Naming involves awareness of a problem in the society and giving it a name. For example, shipyard workers were troubled by a disease which they named as Asbestosis. The disease had troubled them for a long time hence the recognition of problem and naming it. A problem can be defined by blaming other people or organizations for the consequences of the problem. For example, the shipyard workers attributed Asbestosis to the firms. They attributed the problems brought by the disease to their firms. A problem can also be raised by asking for help or compensation by the concerned authorities. The process of asking for help or compensation was defined as the claiming method of constructing public problems. The methods of defining problems proposed by NBC however faced controversies. The three ways of raising problems may the course of justice. For instance if injured people blame themselves for the injuries, they may not get proper solutions to the injuries. A good example is the people who have been cheated by Madoff. Annette Morris indicates that claims depends on factors such as social constructions and external facts that make the process of claiming injuries successful. External factors may deter our abilities to construct and follow claims. The process is also dependent on the ability of a person to take legal actions against those who wrong them. Some people do not know the procedures to follow legal systems and thus they end up not getting justice (Gandy 1982). Defining a problem involves giving the name of the problem. The naming of a problem gives the domain statement enables those who are responsible for solving the problem to base their decisions on the domain statement. Identification of the problem is due to the characteristics of the domain. The definition in the domain statement gives the phenomena of the problem and the characteristics associated with the problem. Therefore, having knowledge of the specific domain that encompasses your problems is essential in the process of making claims. For instance while making claims about missing children, we create a new domain. The definition of the domain includes the name and age of the child. It also the specific time the child is claimed to have disappeared from our vicinity (Rasch and Tsebelis 2011). Definition of the domain guides the manner in which we interpret problems. It gives the structure of the problem that can be used to classify it into a specific domain of problems. Numeric estimates are essential when making domain statements. For example, the age of a missing child and the time the child is claimed to have disappeared are very important while solving the problem. The definition of the domain goes hand in hand with warrant. Warrant is another aspect of making claims is the warrant of the claim. The warrant of the claim ensures the necessity of taking action to solve the problem at hand. Knowledge of the domain of a problem can be very important in the process of constructing social problems. Knowledge involves discovering facts and transforming them into a form that can be comprehended by those who can solve social problems. Unlike rhetoric which is powered by the art of persuasion, science provides facts based the findings of a research. It is used to prove things true or false, and right or wrong. It creates procedures for formulating facts. For example, forensic science aids in the investigation and fact finding in the scenes of crime. It converts simple observations into facts that can be used as evidence against wrongdoers. However, the credibility of the evidence produced for execution of crimes is dependent on the capacity, reliability, and the reputation of the persons tasked with conducting forensic investigation (Rasch and Tsebelis 2011). Persuasion is considered an art used by politicians and not by scientists. It tries to convince the minds of people to follow certain decisions. Persuasion is not normally based on facts that can be substantiated directly but rather on ambitions. Politicians use persuasive strategies to change the perceptions of people without using concrete evidence of their words. Politicians and lobbyists use rhetoric convince the society on particular views. Contrary to this, scientists base their words on factual information and figures from researches. Science is used make arguments that are based on factual information. The outcomes of the arguments are supported by the accuracy and certainty of the tests that have been conducted to prove and support the facts (Rasch and Tsebelis 2011) The definition and formulation of a problem is clear if the claimer is aware of the causation of the problem. Causation of a problem can be best explained using scientific reasoning. It involves references to the visible information that is interpreted into factual information. Complex technological systems enable the conversion of information to clear and comprehendible form is easier if the claimer is wary of the causes of the problems at hand. Complex institutional systems make the process of formulating problems easier and quicker because of the speciality of their knowledge in the domain. For example, the French blood scandal was unravelled by the parliamentary commission. The commission found out that the health secretary went against the decision to destroy unsterilized food. Effective systems and technologies can therefore make decision making easier and quicker. The Dynamics of Issues. Issues take different cycles before they are defined into problems. An attention cycle influences the behaviour and attitudes of the public to respond to certain issues. There are different stages of the cycles as defined by down. The first stage is known as the problem stage. The stage comes into existence when highly social conditions are present in a society but have not capture the attention of the public. However, policy makers such as politicians and lobby groups are aware of the social conditions. Objective conditions of the issues are always at their worst stage in this stage since the society is suffering yet it is not wary of the suffering as a problem that can be addressed (Joachim 2007). The society suffers because it does not have the ability to raise the concern as a social problem. This is because the members of the society are not fully aware of the objective conditions as a problem to their society. The society does not have the knowledge to define objective conditions as problems and call for their solutions. For example, people in the United States suffered for many years due to racism and slavery. Few people were concerned with slavery and racism since they perceived them as normal state of life. The slaves were not wary of their freedom rights. Policy makers tried to enlighten the society about their objective conditions but it took many years of suffering to succeed in doing so. The society had accepted the status quo despite living in problems (Joachim 2007). The second stage is characterized by recognition of the objective conditions. It is also highly euphoric in nature since the society is awakened by the issues raised by policy makers and activists. It occurs as a disaster that diverts the attention of the society to a particular issue. For example French riots gave birth to the problème des banlieues. The public is enlightened on the problems that have been prevalent in their societies. The discovery of these problems is accompanied by enthusiasm and the ambitions that make the issues seem too easy to solve within a very short time. The society is left in euphoria and can make mass movements to solve the problems when the discovery is still sinking in their minds. The combination of the euphoria and alarm makes the solution to the problems seem very easy due to the incitement by politicians and activists. The public can act quickly to solve the problem if it is within its capabilities to solve the problems. After being fascinated by the discovery of the problems, the public starts realizing the costs and consequences of solving their problems. The cost of solving these problems might be demanding in all way. It becomes clear to everyone that solving a problem requires using lots of funds and effort from a population of very many people. The public recognizes that part of the problem that the issue has consequence and advantages the majority of the public enjoys. It becomes clear to the public that solving the problem is not as easy as it was apparent in the early stages. Politicians and activists know that the problem is not easy to solve but they cannot disclose it directly to the public. They like keeping the public in the enthusiasm so that it can provide its input whenever required to do it. The enthusiasm by the public starts fading away and reality of the matter sinks in (Joachim 2007). Many people analyse the cost to of achieving the solution to the problem in three ways. Some people among the public get discouraged by the complexity of solving the problem. Others take the issue positively and are willing to make their contributions to the solution of the problem .The are the groups of people who are willing to go the extra mile towards the realization of the solution. The other group comprises of those who get bored by the complexities of solving the problem. They just wait for things to change since they feel that the issue is no longer interesting as it was in its discovery stage (Birkland 1997). Many people in the society experience combinations of these feelings depending on the information they get day by day. The enthusiasm associated with the issue becomes completely faded since the solution to the problem is not as easy as it was in its initial stages. The final stage comprises of divergent views on the matter with many people now cognizant of the complexities of the issue at hand. Few people are highly supportive of the matter, the rest have given up or are just waiting for the fate of the matter. Some issues are left asleep while other are tackled with caution and less enthusiasm. The public is now aware of the requirements to solve this problem and handles the matter with little or no interest. The process of solving the problem now takes longer time than it was initially anticipated. For example, solving the problem of slavery and racism in the United States took centuries. It took generations to end the problem that was experiencing lapses of enthusiasm by earlier generations (Birkland 1997). There are other dynamics of issues is influenced by focusing events. Events create awareness to the public of issues that affect the society. Examples of these events include earthquakes such as the San Francisco earthquake (1971) and hurricanes such as Camille (1979). Mobilizations after such events focus on particular elements of the events. The first element is the change of dominant issues in the agenda of the events. For example, the public becomes aware of the need to make disaster preparedness more effective. The public also changes its perceptions of the policy domain and the evidence of the policies and their groups (Birkland 1997). Groups benefits from the focusing of events by expanding the issues to understand its elements. The groups change the agenda of the events from systemic to formal. The weight of the event makes it worth of consideration. According to Birkland, groups that are disadvantaged politically benefit from their attempts to change issues that are brought by events. On the other hand, politicians are disadvantaged since they get the information regarding these events at the same time as the public. Therefore, any information they give to the public is perceived as way of attracting the interest of the public when matters are at their worst stage. The comprehension of the event happens simultaneously to the advantage of the public. The case is very important to the pro-change groups because they become aware of the situation and get timely and raw updates on the event (Birkland 1997). Contrary to the views by Birkland, the politicians can take advantage of the situation to explain false and distorting information about the events. The politicians and the government give false information regarding the causes of the events to cover up some hidden information about the competency of the public authorities. However, the coverage of the events by the mass media gives the public an opportunity to decide on the credibility of the information given by the public authorities. The mass media is often on time to cover major events when the public authorities are not aware of the development of the events. The coverage by mass media provides information that cannot be ignored by the public leaving the public authorities in a hot seat to justify their competency in their duties. Most of flaws in the public authorities are exposed in such cases when they cannot cover up their incompetence and flaws. The public takes advantage of the situation to determine flaws in the public authorities. Agenda setting takes new dimension in such situations. The arenas model of dynamic issues explores the history of social problems. Social problem existence is related to other to other social problems. In such cases, the social problems are complex institutional system in terms of their definition and explanation. Sociologists focus on the competition between critical issues in systems of public arenas. Sociologists assume that public competition is a limited resource that focuses on the arenas. Competing problems hinder the process of attaining solutions for the problems since they deter the process of problem solving. Only small fractions of competing problems enter the solution stage. This is because they shift focus to arguments on which problems to solve. Moreover, competing problems reduce the number of resources required to solve the problems. For instance, two colliding groups with divergent political interests cannot solve development problems in the society. One group might distort the efforts of the other group to portray it as a group of losers. Activists and professions ensure the continuity of competing problems by competing with each other. Competition occurs in in two levels. The first level occurs in substantive areas where stakeholders collide with regulatory authorities. For example, reckless drivers may be against alcohol regulations in places where driving safety is taken seriously. The second form of competition occurs when some groups or individuals are competing just for public attention without any critical agenda (Joachim 2007). Every arena has the carrying capacity of which it can accommodate social problems at a specific time. The gap existing between number of public problems and space makes the competition important. For example, during campaigns only few images of candidate are used to facilitate the campaigns of the candidate. Arenas have different capacities in terms of volume of issues to be addressed and those they can put forward. The limited carrying capacity the existing arenas determines the number of social problems getting to the agenda. The carrying capacity of an arena limits the volume and size of the political agenda it can accommodate. The carrying capacity of arenas defines the size of the agenda. Carrying capacity makes the process of solving problems easier harder or easier. References Birkland, T. 1997. After disaster. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Gandy, O. 1982. Beyond agenda setting. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Co. Joachim, J. 2007. Agenda setting, the UN, and NGOs. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Protess, D. and McCombs, M. 1991. Agenda setting. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Rasch, B. and Tsebelis, G. 2011. The role of governments in legislative agenda setting. London: Routledge. Read More