Dr Bruce Redman defines agenda setting as "a theory, but like all good theories, is a bit obvious really!"
Social construction of reality:
- one's perception of reality is constructed through a process of communication using shared language
- reality exists and the way in which we understand it is mediated through social life
- the media play a significant role in constructing social reality
There are four, interrelated agendas:
1. Public agenda: what members of the public regard as important
2. Policy agenda: issues that decision makers think are salient
3. Corporate agenda: issues that large corporations regard as important
4. Media agenda: issues that are discussed in the media
So the media don't just report news, they shape it. And because of this, whichever issue is most concentrated on is then seen by the public as the 'most important.'
Harold Lasswell said the media injects influence into their audiences. Hypodermic needle model. Lovely. But very true in many circumstances. Impressive Harold, this model was created in the 1920s!
Another star from the 1920s, Walter Lippman said that mass media create images in our minds of events. Lippman also said that people are very reliant on what is told to them rather than actually thinking about something and making their own judgments.
And of course, throughout history we have seen this happen in our society. The power of words and the power of images, and how they can shape our perceptions of events and what is deemed as 'important news.' Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw proved this in 1968, evaluating that mass media have a profound influence on what we see as important and what is considered newsworthy.
There are two main types of agenda setting theory:
1. First level agenda setting theory: emphasises major issues and the "transfer of salience of those issues." What the media focuses on.
2. Second level agenda setting theory: how the media focuses our attention on certain attributes of issues
(It's actually really nice to see two theories that do not have ridiculously complex/hard to remember/hard to pronounce names.)
Anyway! Agenda setting does many things. It transfers issue salience from the media to the public. It transfers issue salience for both issues and other objects. And elite media set the agenda for other types of media.
Agenda setting also has a family:
1. Media gatekeeping: what the media chooses to reveal to the public
2. Media advocacy: purporseful promotion of an issue
3. Agenda cutting: truth in the world not being represented
4. Agenda surfing: media follows trends and crowds (that seems kind of scary)
5. Diffusion of news: who decides when a media report is released, ie. correct timing
6. Portrayal of an issue: self explanatory. But also how the issue may influence the public
7. Media dependence: the more dependent an individual is on media, the more susceptible to media agenda setting
Perhaps "diffusion of news" may become a little outdated in time? We are already questioning whether or not there really is a prime time for news anymore, especially due to news being accessible to us any time of the day. Interesting.
Like anything, media agenda setting has both strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths: explanatory power, predictive power, can be proven false, organising power, can influence further researce
Weaknesses: Dependent on people (may not have interest in news, not well-informed.. etc), people are set in their ways, news cannot create and conceal problems.
So there we have it, agenda setting!
No comments:
Post a Comment