Agenda Setting Theory-Theories of Communication-Handouts, Lecture notes of Theories of Communication

Download Agenda Setting Theory-Theories of Communication-Handouts and more Lecture notes Theories of Communication in PDF only on Docsity!

LESSON 33

AGENDA SETTING THEORY

Initially agenda setting was understood in a relatively straightforward way. Agenda setting as laid out by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw was that ‘agenda-setting is the process whereby the news media lead the public in assigning relative importance to various public issues.

A change in thinking The agenda-setting hypothesis came about when researchers became dissatisfied with the dominant theoretical position in mass communication research during the 1950s and the 1960s- the limited effects model. Joseph Klapper stated in his book effects of mass communication in 1960 when he wrote:

“Mass communication ordinarily does not serve as a necessary and sufficient cause of audience effects, but rather functions among and through a nexus of mediating factors and influences.”

For many years, the approach used in communication research was to look for attitude change and most of the research had found that the mass media have little effect in this area. However, researchers were looking at the wrong target. Maybe the mass media had their effects on people’s perceptions –their views of the world- rather than their attitudes. The media agenda influences the public agenda not by saying this issue is important in an overt way but by giving more space and time to that issue and by giving it more prominent space and time. That is, if headlines of newspapers and lead stories of television newscasts all highlight a study. Example touting the role of cholesterol in increasing heart disease this issue is likely to be seen as an important item on the public agenda.

The modern concept of agenda setting is often attributed to Walter Lipmann in 1922, who in his book Public Opinion , argued that the mass media create images of events in our minds and that policy makers should be cognizant (aware) of those ‘pictures in people's heads.’ Lipmann emphasized that the pictures of reality created by the news media were merely reflections of actual reality and therefore were, sometimes distorted. He said that news-media projections of the world create a pseudo- environment for each news consumer. The pseudo-environment exists in addition to the actual environment , and people react to this pseudo-environment. “For the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for a direct acquaintance.”

Other scholars also described the concept of agenda setting in their writings prior to empirical assessment of the concept in the early 1970s. In 1958, Norton Long wrote:

“In a sense, the newspaper is the prime mover in setting the territorial agenda, it has a great part in determining what most people will be talking about, what most people will think the facts are and what most people will regard as the way problems are to be dealt with.”

In 1959 Kurt and Lang wrote that the mass media force attention to certain issues. They build up public images of political figures. They are constantly presenting objects suggesting what individual in the mass should think about, know about, and have feelings about. Lang summarized the role of the news media in building the agenda in these words:

First the news media highlight some events, activities, groups, personalities and so forth to make them stand out. Different kinds of issues require different amounts and kinds of coverage to gain attention. This common focus affects what people will think or talk about.

Second the object is, the focus of attention still needs to be framed, it must come to stand for something- some problem or concern. The media can play up or down the more serious aspects of a situation. The third step is the build up links the object or events to secondary symbols, so that it becomes a part of the recognized political landscape.

Something like interest aggregation is involved, since the line of division on the particular issue does not always coincide with the cleavage between the organized political parties or between other sharply defined groups.

Finally, spokesmen who can articulate demands must make their appearance, their effectiveness stems in good part from their ability to command media attention.

First empirical test First empirical test of Lipmann’s ideas about agenda setting was published in 1972by two University of North Carolina researchers, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, in what came to be known as the Chapel Hill study. They designed a study to test the influence of election campaign coverage on public perceptions of the importance of issues. Prior to election they asked Chapel Hill voters “what are you most concerned about these days?”

The issues they identified – were found almost identical agendas on the –part of news media. Hence, they found an incredibly strong correlation. the public agenda was a virtual reflection of media agenda. They named this ‘transfer of salience’ of issues from the media to the public “the agenda setting influence of mass communication.

After this ground breaking study in 1972, agenda –setting research caught fire among communication investigators, with hundreds of studies being conducted throughout the ensuing 25 years. These researches included replication of the original study conducted by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw.

Contingency Factors The second phase of agenda setting research began when researcher started looking into a causal direction for agenda setting effects and contingent conditions for such effects. Researchers found that voters with a greater need for orientation to their world and voters who used the mass media more frequently than others were more likely to have agendas that corresponded to the news media agenda.

Weaver proposed the finding in 1977 who called this contingency factor an individual’s ‘need for orientation’. Thus, an individual might believe that economic policy is interesting but might know little about the topic. Such an individual will be led to active use of the media and would thus be more likely to be influenced by the specific agenda items highlighted in the press and on television.

Other extensions of the theory in this area have included the notion that educational level and political interest might moderate the extent to which the media set the agenda for particular individuals. Other scholars considered the ways in which some issues might be more prone to the agenda setting effect than others. Most important extension in this regard is the concept of issue obtrusiveness. An issue is obtrusive if most members of the public have had direct contact with and less obtrusive if audience members have not had such direct experience .e.g. foreign policy.

It is argued that agenda-setting results should be strongest for unobtrusive issues because audience members must rely on the media for information on these topics. There have also been debates about how various types of media influence the public agenda. Studies have revealed that broadcast media have a quicker impact on the public agenda; the agenda-setting function is more long lived for print media.

In an attempt to provide stronger evidence for causal direction the next major study of agenda setting was conducted in a laboratory setting where the researchers manipulated videotaped net work television newscasts to vary the placement and emphasis given to the stories.

Two levels of agenda setting In addition to considering contingency factors that might influence agenda setting, other theorists have extended the theory to consider different levels of agenda setting. McCombs, Shaw and Weaver in 1997 make the distinction between first and second level agenda setting.