Reading Guide Module 5: Agenda-Setting Theory To Assist You

Reading Guide Module 5agenda Setting Theoryto Assist You With The Assi

To assist you with the assigned readings, I have developed an outline of questions for you to answer. Think about this as a key for what information to pay attention to in the reading. Research shows that students learn and retain information better when they can write it down in their own words. Try to answer the questions within these guides in your own words rather than copying and pasting the content from readings/lectures. The idea is to see if you can succinctly answer the question in your own words based on the knowledge you gained from your readings/lectures.

Try to answer each question within one to three sentences.

How is the idea behind agenda setting theory different than selective exposure theory? How does agenda setting theory conceptualize media? How does agenda setting theory conceptualize media effect? Briefly describe the original two constructs and one proposition of agenda setting theory.

What are the two foundational assumptions of agenda setting theory? What is the difference between first-level and second-level agenda setting? How does the internet influence the agenda building aspect of agenda setting theory? What kind of empirical support exists for agenda setting theory? How is agenda setting theory similar to and different from framing theory? What is the relationship between media, public, and policy agenda?

Paper For Above instruction

The agenda-setting theory fundamentally addresses the media’s role in shaping public perception by determining which issues are considered important. Unlike selective exposure theory, which suggests individuals choose to consume media that aligns with their existing beliefs, agenda-setting theory emphasizes the media’s influence in highlighting specific topics, thereby influencing the public’s perceptions of what issues are significant (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). The media are conceptualized as gatekeepers that control the flow of information, shaping public discourse and priority, which in turn can influence policy decisions.

Media effects are viewed through the lens of the media’s ability to shape the salience of issues rather than directly changing attitudes or behaviors. This suggests that media influence operates primarily by influencing what people think about—rather than what they think—affirming the central tenet of agenda-setting. The original constructs of agenda setting include the transfer of salience from the media to the public and among policymakers—these are the core ideas that issues emphasized in the media become viewed as the most important by the public and policymakers, a relationship articulated through the first- and second-level agenda setting.

The two foundational assumptions of agenda-setting theory are: first, that the media have the power to select and emphasize certain issues, influencing public priorities; and second, that the public’s perceptions are shaped by media coverage. First-level agenda setting involves the media influencing what topics are seen as important, while second-level agenda setting, also known as attribute agenda setting, involves shaping how the public perceives these issues by emphasizing specific attributes or framing. With the rise of the internet and social media, the traditional agenda-building process becomes more complex as multiple sources compete for attention, yet it also democratizes the process by enabling direct interactions between the public and the issue agenda (McCombs, 2018).

Empirical support for agenda-setting theory is extensive, with numerous studies demonstrating correlations between media coverage and public issue salience (McCombs & Shaw, 1972; McCombs, 2004). However, debates exist regarding causality and the influence of intervening variables like personal interests or prior knowledge. Compared to framing theory, which emphasizes how issues are presented and interpreted through particular angles or frames, agenda setting focuses on the prominence of issues rather than their interpretive framing. While both theories highlight media influence, framing theory is more concerned with how issues are described, whereas agenda setting concerns which issues are highlighted. The relationship among media, the public, and policymakers is dynamic: media set the agenda, shaping public concern, which can influence policymakers to act.

References

• McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Polity.
• McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
• McCombs, M. (2018). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.
• McNair, B. (2017). An introduction to political communication. Routledge.
• Wanta, W., & Ghanem, S. (2007). Agenda setting and international news coverage: Assessing the "CNN Effect". Mass Communication & Society, 10(2), 159-187.
• Graber, D. A. (2003). Processing politics: Learning from television in the Internet age. CQ Press.
• Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
• Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). The future of Framing research: Theoretical and empirical challenges. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 25-41.
• Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.