Agenda-Setting Theory

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:

Agenda Setting Theory; So, what do you think? You think what we want you to!

It's not as simplistic as that in Agenda Setting Theory, but it is close. The quote used to sum up the theory is that "the press may not tell you what to think, but it is strongly successful in telling it's readers what to think about(Griffin 360). One of the most famous cases of Agenda Setting is the Watergate scandal. It was a little known story, that eventually would not go away, and had the power to sway the public to realize the dishonesty of Nixon. Components of the theory start with a hypothesis.

The Agenda Setting Hypothesis states that mass media has the abiltity to transfer the salience of items on their news agenda to the public agenda. It is not however a one way street theorists reaearch public agenda too, which are the most important issues measured by public opinion survey. Framing is another very important aspect of agenda setting. It is a selection of a restricted number of thematically related attributes for inclusion on the media agenda when a particular object or issue is discussed.

News doesn't select itself. Who sets the agenda for the agenda setters?(Griffin,362).

This is an example of a pervasive media agenda. This agenda is created by the continual message that candidate Ron Paul is insignifigant to this election, even though he has gaind widespread support,as the facts dictate.This is more about what is kept from being said then what is being said. I'd like to add that I saw this from the other side too, such as MSNBC. The election coverage to me was so disheartening, because it was a sea of talking heads expert at framing the news, and agenda setting. Where is the real news anymore? The second clip is an example of framing. This is a fox news show, known as an Obama bashing outlet. The issue here is whether these pundits have skewed the news for their own framing, or whether this is real valid debate on a important issue, or in this case phrase. Needless to say the clip ends with one of the pundits storming out, frusturated I assume by the needless framing over this issue. You decide.