Agenda-Setting Theory as proposed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in Chapter 28 of the Griffin text puts forth the belief that "mass media have the ability to transfer the salience of items on their news agendas to the public agenda." In other words, mass media does not try to influence a viewer's opinions on the issue, but rather, tells the audience where to focus its attention. Viewers are shown by mass media which issues are deemed "important" (which issues to focus on), which is at all times determined by the mass media. “Position” and “length” are very important to how prominent a story is within the media. Many news outlets are competing to be the most viewed or the most heard. So these outlets use public opinion to determine the stories which should be set forth with the most prominent positioning and length. Media outlets want to own the attention of the viewer, and make certain issues more “salient.” (“’Salient’ means we pay greater attention to these issues.) However, “framing” is also an effective tool which the media uses to actually influence what the viewer thinks about AND what the viewer thinks about the issue.
Examples of Agenda Setting within the Mass Media:
In this horrible political ad, agenda setting is practiced:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree media outlets want to own the attention of the viewer the want to tell them what issues to focus on and are most relevant in this country of that particular election. That is why you see mass media make such big deals about gay marriage and other controversial topics like abortion so spark viewship and to get a rise out of the people watching it. Some issues that are enhanced upon don’t really have any business in the political lime light, but like I said they draw attention to themselves gay marriages is the biggest one of all.
ReplyDeletePolitical ads can represent great examples of Agenda-Setting Theory. The use of negative ads while campaigning for office has become standard for all politicians. It is interesting to consider when these ads run, on what stations they run, and the length of the ads. Political ads, like the one posted here, are on constantly during times of campaigning. They also maintain a certain level of frequency in their broadcast. It is common that you may see the same ad 5 or 6 times within the course of 6 commercial breaks. This is an ideal representation of how Agenda-Setting works. Through consistency and the assumed attention of viewers, certain people are able to put forth a certain message and convey it as more important and or more truthful than it actually is. For this same reason, it is important to be skeptical about all news coverage that we, as consumers, take in. By trusting what is being told to us on daily basis, is to trust a group of people with opinions and beliefs just as the rest of us. The problem is that we do not all have the same opinions or beliefs. It is essential to be aware of this difference and the likelihood that someone in a higher position than yourself, will be pushing their own point of view.
ReplyDeletePretty much any political ad is an example of agenda-setting media. Ford got duped, real bad. Whoever had the idea to create this took a serious risk in the political world. Its genius, yet so stupid. Commercials like this are never used for political campaigns; I think it'd be interesting to measure its effectiveness. It's definitely a prime example of framing, the Republican party makes Ford look like an idiot, or about as intelligent as this ad. It's just another way in which the media effects the public's opinion; the question is, does it effect their behavior as well?
ReplyDeleteCompared to most other ads, political ads example the Agenda Setting Theory best. Political ads frame so that the viewers will be influenced in picking and choosing a certain candidate. The purpose of political ads are to succeed in a campaign by showing viewers the positive aspects of Candidate A and Candidate B but at the same time both Candidate A and B have to make the opponent look bad or in other words, not suitable for the job. For example in this ad, Howard Ford is the bad guy, the guy who's not suitable for the job. After seeing this ad, it influenced myself as well to dislike Howard Ford. The information given off the screen formed to me to think that Howard Ford = Bad. But would it have done the same for me if this same ad was made with Obama's name? I probably would still stick with Obama's side. :D
ReplyDelete