Agenda-Setting Function examples and applications

by Brian Gittinger


INTRODUCTION

The agenda-setting function of Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw discuss the affect the media has on a public audience. Agenda-setting, also referred to gatekeeping, is the process that allows some information to reach the audience while other information is kept out. In this theory McCombs and Shaw use politics as a major example of agenda-setting. This type of media coverage happens everyday in the United States and other places where television and news are large determiners of what is considered as important in the world. I will use the example of the presidential race that is going on right now in the United States. There is major agenda-setting by newspapers and major broadcasters of the topic on this political battle. Along with the theme of politics I will show how public interest and agenda-setting are reciprocal as in the Watergate case. Another major example that is prevalent in agenda-setting is the violence that occurs in the United States and how it is actually portrayed by the media.

EXAMPLES AND APPLICATIONS

Political debates and presidential news has always flooded the headlines and newscasts as long as I can remember. These always seem so important and everyone is talking about the candidates and their issues. Why do you think this happens? This happens because the media leads us to believe it is important. A quote from McCombs and Shaw sum this up, "We judge as important what the media judge as important." You can see this happening if you just open your eyes a little and look around. Even people who have no opinion on politics start discussing politics with their families and co-workers. If these people don't care who is running or who even wins why are they even taking the time to discuss the topic. They do so because media deems it important. From my own experiences I can see how agenda-setting takes place everytime I sit down and watch television. During these political races there is rarely an evening news that goes by without having something about the city races, congressional races, and the presidential race. The government has more power on issues like this than any other organization. The government obviously see this as important and of course the major broadcasters will as well and that flows down to the local nightly news. So whether you like it or not you will see something that has to do with politics during times of elections. There is nothing like those 30 second commercials that come on during or between your regularly scheduled program that have the candidates talking about themselves or just badmouthing the other candidate. These are called polyspots and they penetrate the media harder than any other commercial during election times. These are usually seen during primetime television to hit the highest number of viewers. The Baltimore Sun, a newspaper that covers all the latest actions of the candidates has a web site about these polyspots. This site states that almost 80% of these polyspots are retained by the viewing audience as compared to only 20% of the regular commercials seen everyday. If you want to see more about this click here.

Now that I am of age to vote I do pay a lot more attention to these political issues. But I don't know whether or not I am paying attention to them because I see them relevant to me or because the public sees the issues as important. The media sets the agenda and the public reinforces it by paying attention to it. I would have to say that the reason I discuss these issues are because the public reinforces them. Today if you aren't up with the latest news you feel out of place. Just recently I was watching the evening news with my parents and something about the primaries came on and my parents wanted to know what I thought about George W. Bush. I really had nothing to say and I felt incompetent. I stated earlier that public opinion helps to reinforce the affects of agenda-setting. The news is there for the public to see but the public has the ability to make something worth knowing about. In this society public opinion goes a long way. If you aren't within the public beliefs and what the media sees as important you might as well not open your mouth. This kind of agenda-setting function isn't direct but is very affective by using what is called framing. Framing is defined as the attention shown to some aspects of a topic while leaving out others which will lead the audience to have different reactions than they would having heard the whole story. My example of this is how the presidential candidates use badmouthing to gain popularity. This usually gets taken so far out of context that their messages are passed up and the audience is voting on how good a candidate can build himself/herself up. The media focuses on the battle of the candidates instead of on the actual message. This kind of agenda-setting seems to take first place in the news when the election gets closer. You will hear that this candidate acted in a way that contradicts his views. News casts will come on just to state that candidate X said he was against abortion but lied to everyone. Who can you trust? I found an example of this on the New York Times web site. The article talks about how Gore criticizes Bush for using soft money to finance his campaign. He also stated that is Bush wins the election he probably accomplished it unfairly. So this statement is a prime example of what I am talking about. Gore is pointing the finger at Bush accusing him of wrongdoings. Does the audience know if this is true. Bush will strike right back at Gore with some other comment later on and this flow of insults will continue until the election is over. If you want to read the rest of the article click here.

All this talk of agenda-setting really got me wondering who are the people who select what goes on the news. Nothing gets put on the political agenda without the approval of eight men. These are the operation chiefs of Associated press, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, and CBS. These eight men have so much influence over a almost a billion people. But you know the person who even has more power than that is the President himself. When all of the regularly scheduled programs are interrupted for a special presidential announcement, I would call that power over the media. This is the ultimate agenda-setting. These eight men and the president have more power over the public interest than you could imagine. My example of how the media and the public interest reciprocate. My example is about the Watergate scandal. The Washington Post broke this story without much proof. The agenda-setters decided to run the story. The public caught wind of this and every newspaper and broadcaster were in on the story immediately. The story heated up for a while in the media and it reciprocated in the public. But once the scandal was over and the media stopped running stories on this issue it died in the public agenda as well. There was no talk of it anywhere after two weeks of the story ending. This shows the reciprocity between what the media sets as important and the public interest in it.

I know I have stayed on the theme of politics but I have found another example that I consider very appropriate when discussing agenda-setting. This would be the topic of violence. The gatekeepers do a great job of keeping the public informed about who died when and what new drug is being abused on the streets. Most of the time on shows such as Nightline and 20/20 ,you the audience, watch stories of abused spouses and kids growing up on the streets because of their drug addicted mother. The media does such a good job to get people to see these topics as important. I think that too much violence and distress is portrayed in the media. Can't we ever have one newscast without seeing a crime committed or someone dying. The media does this because the topics are tragic and gives the audience something to talk about after watching. An example of the tragedy in the news is the aids case of Ryan White. This boy who was infected with aids was all over the news. This story was documented everywhere where people could see it. This type of story was blown out of proportion and made the family feel uncomfortable. This kind of agenda-setting leaves these images in the mind of children. The media has the power to portraty violence and heartbreak in our society to a volume ten times the actual rate. I found in an article on the web that most americans see the crime rate much higher than it actually is. Do you think this is because everyone experiences crime? No way. They see this like the way they do because the media always plays crime stories on the news.

As you can see agenda-setting function plays a large part in the lives of the submissive audience. The function can get 80% of the audience to remember what somebody said for 30 seconds but not something that is played 10 times a day everyday. The media can shape the perceptions of an audience so much that they think the crime rate if higher than it actually is. This is some power. These examples apply to everyday mainstream life. Many people don't realize what is going on right under neath their noses. The submit themselves to what ever in on the television an recognize it as important. Hey if someone that is national known is telling you something it must be worth listening to. Agenda-setting is strong and will continue to dominate mainstream views for many of years.

REFERENCES

Griffin, E. (1997). A first look at communication theory. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

This page deals with Technological Determinism by Marshall McLuhan. This theory relates to Agenda Setting Function through media affects. Agenda Setting Function influences the public by the message and Technological Determinism affects the public by the medium used. To see this application click here.


back to title page

page last updated on 3/7/00