Communication Theory: Agenda Setting Theory, Framing Theory, Priming Theory

 Communication Theory - Gatdula

 Agenda Setting Theory - Gayamo
 Framing Theory - Jabal
 Priming Theory - Gatdula

Agenda Setting Theory

 Agenda Setting Theory states that mass media organizations determine what the
general population considers newsworthy by deciding how much attention a
news story receives.
 The term salience transfer is commonly used and refers to the ability of the
media to transfer their agendas onto the public.
 Agenda-setting theory refers to how the media’s news coverage determines
which issues become the focus of public attention.
 This theory of mass communication was formally introduced in 1972 by Maxwell
McCombs and Donald Shaw, two professors who documented a significant
correlation between issues citizens of Chapel Hill, N.C., thought were important
and stories presented by the local and national media.

Agenda Setting Theory

Agenda Setting Theory states that mass media organizations determine what the
general population considers newsworthy by deciding how much attention a news story
receives. The term salience transfer is commonly used and refers to the ability of the
media to transfer their agendas onto the public.
Agenda Setting Theory
In a world of blogs, political analysts and 24-hour cable news channels, some people
often wonder just how much the media shapes society’s perception of the world. After
all, millions of people depend on news producers for information that determines the
way they live, vote and behave. Does it matter that the details of a senator’s private life
gets more airtime than her Congressional voting record? Are civil rights as important in
an election year as the economy? Should one be as concerned about Kim Kardashian’s
wedding as about political upheaval in Syria?
These are the kinds of questions that surround the theory of agenda setting. Agenda-
setting theory refers to how the media’s news coverage determines which issues
become the focus of public attention. This theory of mass communication was formally
introduced in 1972 by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, two professors who
documented a significant correlation between issues citizens of Chapel Hill, N.C.,
thought were important and stories presented by the local and national media. Though
it’s impossible to measure the extent of the media’s influence on public opinion, agenda-
setting theory has still proven valuable in understanding how mass media affects the
way people view reality.
Agenda-setting theory rests on two basic assumptions. The first one states that the
media filters and shapes reality instead of simply reflecting it. For example, news stories
are not presented chronologically or according to the number of people affected by
them, but rather in an order that a producer or editor determines to be the most
“sensational,” or most appealing to audiences. The second assumption states that the
more attention the media gives to certain issues, the more likely the public will be to
label those issues as vital ones. In other words, agenda setting doesn’t necessarily tell
people how they should think or feel about certain issues, but rather what issues they
should think about.
The theory does have some scientific merit. For instance, it is based on the cognitive
principle of accessibility, which refers to the memories the brain accesses when asked
to retrieve information. The more a story or issue is publicized in the media, the more
prominently it is stored in people’s memories. Then when people are asked to list the
most important issues of the day, they are likely to respond by naming the top stories
covered in the local or national news. Dozens of studies also testify to the political,
legal, social and economic effects of agenda setting.
Yet agenda-setting theory often falls prey the classic “chicken or egg” conundrum that
has critics asking, “Which came first, public opinion or the media’s agenda?” After all,
news producers claim to cover issues based on what the public wants to hear.
Marketing professionals sift through reams of Nielsen ratings, Internet polls and
advertising data to determine what kinds of information the public wants and how it
should be presented. Lately, with the rise of the Internet, researchers have noticed
agenda setting going in reverse, in which individuals have influenced media coverage
by raising awareness of issues on blogs, forums and social media sites. Some say that
the initial evidence for agenda setting has been overstated.
The theory’s founders admit that the rapidly evolving world of mass communications
has changed the way researchers should approach agenda-setting studies in modern
times. These days, with an overwhelming amount of information available in society,
people can seek out the kinds of information they want and ignore the rest. As a result,
researchers must evaluate individual motives for absorbing certain news stories to
determine agenda setting’s true effects.
Two motives that drive information consumption are relevance and uncertainty. People
seek to learn about an issue when it affects their lives and they know little about said
issue. However, it’s when relevance is low and uncertainty is high that agenda setting
has the strongest effect. That’s because people with no direct connection to an issue
must depend on the media to frame it appropriately. One example of agenda setting’s
effects in this regard is the ongoing reference to socialism in the Obama Administration.
Although the president’s policies do not, according to the Socialist Party USA, fit the
definition of socialism, the media’s repeated allusions to socialism in the White House
have caused many Americans to believe that President Obama is a socialist.
Of course, the media’s agenda setting doesn’t just influence public opinion; it also
affects public policy and the media itself. For example, a front-page story in the New
York Times is likely to be a front-page story in USA Today, a main feature on the
MSNBC website and the leading report on CNN. Regional and local news organizations
report on stories broadcast by national media outlets. Often, the focus of public dialogue
is set by only one or two large organizations, and once an issue has captured the
attention of a number of citizens, the more likely it is to inspire new laws and
regulations. Thus, agenda-setting theory remains highly relevant to mass
communication studies today.