Post #10: EOTO Theories (Agenda-Setting Theory)

The agenda-setting theory was first introduced in 1972 by two college professors, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw. The pair surveyed North Carolina voters during the 1968 U.S. presidential election. Through the information they got, the two built the notion that the mass media sets the agenda for what people should care about. Thus, the agenda-setting theory was born.

Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw

The official definition of agenda-setting is described as the "ability (of the news media) to influence the importance placed on the topics of the public agenda.” This theory refers to how the media’s news coverage determines which issues become the focus of public attention. So, in other words, more news coverage means more public attention, which then means more weight, focus, and attention on a certain thing. This could also mean that the mass media is missing, or even ignoring, other stories that could be of equal or even higher importance.

An example of agenda-setting would be the BLM protests that were all over the news media earlier this year. Of course the BLM movement is extremely important and deserve the recognition, but many other happenings and events were being missed because a lot of the public’s attention was drawn towards the movement.

There are three types of agenda setting. The first one is public agenda setting, where the general public determines the agenda for which stories are considered important, and which ones are considered unimportant. The second one is media agenda setting, when the media determines the agenda for which stories are considered important. The third and final type is policy agenda setting, which is when both the public and media agendas influence the decisions of the public policy makers.

The agenda-setting theory rests on two assumptions. The first is that the media filters and shapes what we see rather than just reflecting stories to the audience. This would be similar to seeing a sensational or scandalous story at the top of a news site, as opposed to a story that happened more recently or one that affects more people, such as an approaching storm or a tax reform.

The second assumption is that the more attention the media gives to an issue, the more likely the public will consider that issue to be important.  Another way to look at it is this: mass media organizations are not telling us what to think or how we should feel about a story or issue, but rather, they are giving us certain stories or issues that people should think more about.

There are several criticisms of the agenda-setting theory. For one, the theory is very difficult to measure. There has not been much research on the theory, and the research shows that there is not too much correlation between public prominence and media coverage. Also, since the average person has access to internet and/or social media, people can find many news articles and sources on a topic, instead of just relying on one or two sources. 

The second criticism of the agenda-setting theory is that the theory does not work for people who have already made up their minds. For example, someone might believe that his or her elected official was the right choice for office, despite numerous compelling reports to the contrary presented by the mass media.

Overall, it is difficult to convince others that the mass media is setting the agenda.