Lecture Ten

This week’s lecture focused on the theory of Agenda Setting. Such a theory can be defined as “the process of the mass media presenting certain issues frequently and prominently with the result that large segments of the public come to perceive those issues as more important than others. Simply put, the more coverage an issue receives, the more important it is to people.”

Essentially the theory of Agenda Setting can be separated into four different categories: Public Agenda, Policy Agenda, Corporate Agenda and Media Agenda. These different forms of agenda are interrelated and constantly happening.

As Dr. Redman outlined in the lecture, there are two basic assumptions of Media Agenda Setting. Firstly, it is assumed that the mass media do not merely reflect and report reality but also, more accurately, filter and shape it. Arguably, this filtering and shaping of reality is necessary for pragmatic reasons as there can be, at times, too much news and so the most important news must be found, through the process of filtration, and privileged. Further, the second assumption is that the media's concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues. 

There are two types of Agenda Setting theory defined by different theorists. The First Level Agenda Setting Theory is predominantly studied by researchers and is preoccupied with the “major issues” and “the transfer of the salience of those issues.” As Dr Redman notes, “[a]t this level the media suggest what the public should focus on through coverage.” The other main type of this theory is known as the Second Level Agenda Setting Theory. At this level attention is paid to the attributes of the issues as the media suggests how people should think about an issue.

What does Agenda Setting do? Essentially, Agenda Setting results in the transfer of issue salience from the News Media to the public and the transfer of issue salience for both issues and other objects such as political figures. Often the ‘Elite’ media sets the agenda for issues in other media. Most significantly, it has been newspapers which have often set the agenda for mass media.

A quotation shown to us by Dr Redman in the lecture particularly resonated with me. It was this statement made by Bernard Cohen: “The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.” This statement is very truthful. Though reading some recent newspaper articles in relation to Julia Gillard’s labelling of Abbott as a misogynist and sexist may not have influenced my opinion of such a topic they have definitely influenced my preoccupation with this incident. Indeed, “Agenda Setting is not always the diabolical plan by journalists to control the minds of the public but an adverse by-product of the necessity to focus the news” (McCombs 2004).

The Agenda Setting ‘Family’ is large. What is involved is: (1) Media Gatekeeping, (2) Media Advocacy, (3) Agenda Cutting, (4) Agenda Surfing, (5) Diffusion of News, (6) Portrayal of an issue and lastly, (7) media dependence. Media Gatekeeping refers to how individuals control the flow of messages through a communication channel while media advocacy is the purposive promotion of a message through the media. Agenda cutting relates to the fact that most of the noteworthy truth/reality going on the world is not being represented. Instead of providing the public with information about important issues such as AIDS, much of mass media is consumed with gossip about celebrities such as Justin Bieber and Pink. Next, the term Agenda Surfing is used to define the way some media outlets “surf” on the wave of topics originally mentioned in the opinion-leading media. Further, the diffusion of news is a process through which an important event is communicated to the public. The portrayal of an issue can often very significantly influence the way the public perceives an issue. Different media outlets deliberately portray issues in different ways to elicit different responses from the public. Lastly, media dependence is about the relationship between the public and the media. The more dependant the person is on media information, the more susceptible that person is to media agenda setting.

The strengths of the Agenda Setting theory is that it has explanatory, predicative and organising powers and lays a strong foundation for further research into this area of inquiry. One weakness of the theory, however, is that it reduces all media-users and in doing so overlooks the individual qualities of the public. As such, media-users may not be as ideal as the theory assumes as not everyone uses the media in the same way. Moreover, another a weakness is that the news cannot create or conceal problems but merely alter the awareness, priorities and salience people attach to certain problems.