agenda-setting the process

8/3/2019 Agenda-Setting the Process

1/18

Agenda-Setting:Studying the Process

Source:Agenda-Setting, James W. Dearing, Everett M.Rogers (1996)

Student: Irina Tacu, 389490

Making News, ZUR350


2/18

1. This chapter critiques pastresearch on the agenda-

setting process;

suggests directions for future works;

identifies ways of combining research

methods to increase the reliability ofobservations and to allow the study ofnewaspects of the agenda-setting process.


3/18

2. Agenda-Setting: the Concept

It explains: why information about only certain issues

is available to the public,

how public opinion is shapedin a democracy.

It is a result of a dynamic interplay(different issues rise and fall in importanceover time) => the study of agenda-settingis the study ofsocialchange and ofsocialstability.


4/18

3. Comparisons Among Agenda-

Setting Approaches Agenda-setting has attracted a huge

amount of research attention; it is animproved approach to understanding media

effects.

Cross-sectional hierarchy designs

VS

Longitudinal research designs


5/18

4.Cross-Sectional Hierarchy

One-point-in-time correlationalcomparisons between:

the media contentand

the aggregated responses from therespondents surveyed about issue

salience*

*salience = the state of being noticeable, visible, important.


6/18

5.Longitudinal Research

Over-time participant observation inmedia organizations;

Analysis of quantitative variables(real-world indicators);

Depth interviews with elites, surveysof public leaders;

Analyses of congressional votingbehaviour.


7/18

6. Advantages ofLongitudinal

over Cross-Sectional Research It can determine the direction of influence of the

agenda-setting process: whethermedia coverageprecedes and influences the public opinion orvice-versa.

It can determine the strength of influence for differentissues in media.

It can distinguish between periods of time with either

strong or weak media effects.

Therefore, it enables the analysis of media effects atdifferent points in the history of a certain issue.


8/18

7. Generalizations about

Agenda-Setting1) Overa certain period of time, different

media place a similar salience on a set ofissues it is not important what themedia say about an issue, but how muchthey say about it.

2) Real-world indicators are relativelyunimportant in setting the media agenda

what seems to count more is the attentionthat organized networks of people cangather related to their framing of aproblem, rather than the severity of it.


9/18

3) The agenda-setting process is one ofsocial

construction; clues from the media andthe environment are interpreted in order todetermine the salience of the issue agenda-setting is sometimes an emotionalreaction to certain trigger events (tragicevent, personal tragedy).

4) The White House, the New York Times andspectacular triggerevents play a dominant

role in putting an issue on the US mediaagenda nevertheless, these are notalways sufficient.


10/18

Tragic events triggering further

media pieces


11/18

5) Scientificresearchresults do not play an

importantrole in the agenda-settingprocess.

6) The position of an issue on the media

agenda importantly determines the issuessalience on thepublic agenda 60% ofthe 112 empirical studies of the agenda-setting process reviewed by this bookconfirm this relationship, but only in this

direction; there is less strong researchevidence on the vice-versa link: does the

public agenda influence the policy agenda?


12/18

7.Toward Disaggregation in

Agenda-Setting Research The term aggregation refers to the

existence of a single approach to acentral research problem.

A powerful paradigm in any scientificspecialty can be dangerous, leading

to the over-standardization of thespecialty and keeping it away fromdevelopment.


13/18

In the case of agenda-setting

research, it may have become overlystereotyped around the McCombs andShaw paradigm, according to whichthe public opinion and policy are

manufactured in a linear, one-dimensional, assembly-line way.

Criticism of this paradigm: it just tells

people what data to collect withoutexplaining their importance.


14/18

An important move toward disaggregation: theErbring et al. study(1980):

The researchers gathered personal interview datafrom a national sample of respondents (publicagenda) and correlated it with the media agenda,which was content-analyzed. The respondents hadactually read the concerned 94 newspapers.

The researchers measured crime and unemploymentrates in the communities of the respondents; nonationwide real-world indicators were used.

The tendency to disaggregate consists in bringing thepersonal characteristics of the respondents to theanalysis.


15/18

8. Research Questions for

Future Study Who else puts an issue on the national agenda?

(influence between nations)

What keeps an issue on the national agenda over alengthy period of time?(Why does and issue dropdown the agenda and disappear?)

What is the nature of theprivate process ofagenda-setting that often may occurprior to the

public process that scholars typically observe?(treuse of case studies, participant observation, depthinterviews etc.)


16/18

What is the role of an issue proponent in the agenda-setting process?(charisma, celebrity)

Do the proponents responsible for the policy agenda-setting of one issue learn from prior experiences withthe agenda-setting process for other issues?

How is an issue framed, by whom, and with whatregularity?

To what degree is the agenda-setting process for anissue in the localcommunity similar to whathappenson a national scale for the same issue?


17/18

What is the end of the agenda-setting process?(Usually, a goal of the agenda-setting process isindividual-level behaviour change: smoking cessation,

recycling etc.)

Why are some issues notresolved?(homelessness inthe US)

How does one issue compete for salience with anotherissue?

Is the media agenda-setting process limited to newsissues?(maybe entertainment and advertising should

be given a role)

How is the agenda-setting process in other nationsdifferent from the one in the US?


18/18

9. Multimethod Research

Designs systematic inquiries that combine several

different data-gathering methods.

Complementary multimethodapproach: each method provides dataabout different but related researchquestions;

Focused multimethod approach: eachmethod provides different data in a strongtest of the same hypothesis or researchquestion.

agenda-setting the process

Documents