1. 30
Agenda-Setting Theory of Maxwell McCombs & Donald Shaw

2. The Original Agenda: What Not to Think, But What to Think About
Slide 2
The Original Agenda: What Not to Think, But What to Think About
Agenda-setting hypothesis – mass media have ability to transfer the salience of issues on their news agenda to the public agenda
Do not make deliberate attempt to influence listener, viewer, or reader opinion
Look to news professionals for cues on where to focus attention

3. Media Agenda and Public Agenda: A Close Match
Slide 3
Media Agenda and Public Agenda: A Close Match
McCombs and Shaw’s first task was to measure the influence between the media and public agendas
Media agenda – pattern of news coverage across major print and broadcast media, as measured by prominence and length of stories
Public agenda – most important public issues as measured by public opinion surveys

4. Slide 4
What Causes What?
McCombs and Shaw’s findings were impressive, but equivocal
True test of agenda-setting hypothesis must show
that public priorities lag
behind the media agenda

5. Slide 5
What Causes What?
Yale researchers established cause-and-effect chain of influence from media agenda to public agenda
Viewers who saw media agendas that focused on pollution and defense elevated those issues on their own lists of concerns
Confirmed cause-and-effect relationship between media agenda and public agenda

6. Who is Most Affected by the Media Agenda?
Slide 6
Who is Most Affected by the Media Agenda?
McCombs and Shaw understood that “people are not automatons waiting to be programmed by the news media”
People willing to let media shape thinking when a high need for orientation exists
Index of curiosity – measure of extent that individuals' need for orientation motivates them to let the media shape their views

7. Index of Curiosity

8. Framing: Transferring the Salience of Attributes
Slide 8
Framing: Transferring the Salience of Attributes
The media aren’t very successful in telling us what to think, but they are stunningly successful in telling us what to think about
Framing – selection of a restricted number of thematically related attributes for inclusion on the media agenda when a particular object or issue is discussed

9. Hillary Clinton's Gendered Attributes
Shrill
Bitchy
Every man's first ex-wife
Out of control
Stupid
Hysterical

10. Hillary Clinton's Nongendered Attributes
Confident
Intelligent
Presidential
Decisive
Powerful
Personable

11. Not Just What to Think About, But How to Think About It
Slide 11
Not Just What to Think About, But How to Think About It
Reporters inevitably frame a story by the personal attributes of public figures they select to describe
“The media may not only tell us what to think about, they also may tell us how and what to think about it, and perhaps even what to do about it.” (McCombs and Shaw)

12. Who Sets the Agenda for the Agenda Setters?
Slide 12
Who Sets the Agenda for the Agenda Setters?
Traditional View
News editors
Political candidates
Public relations professionals working for government agencies, corporations and interest groups

13. Who Sets the Agenda for the Agenda Setters? Interest aggregations
Slide 13
Who Sets the Agenda for the Agenda Setters?
Interest aggregations
Clusters of people who demand center stage for their one, overriding concern, pressure groups.

14. Who Sets the Agenda for the Agenda Setters?
Slide 14
Who Sets the Agenda for the Agenda Setters?
Interest aggregations becoming increasingly adept at creating news that must be reported
Contemporary view – anyone who knows how to use social media

15. Contemporary View
PLAY

16. Slide 16
Let's Play a Game
Agenda setting is media telling us WHAT issues to think about (salience)
Framing = media telling us HOW to think about them (bias)
Priming = media telling us HOW to think about them (hype)

17. Slide 17
Let's Play a Game

18. Let's Play a Game
McCombs argues in favor of a powerful media effects model that influences by
WORDS
IMAGES
SOURCE

19. Critique: Are the Effects Too Limited, Is The Scope Too Wide?
Slide 19
Critique: Are the Effects Too Limited, Is The Scope Too Wide?
Definition of framing doesn’t include the emotional connotation of key terms used in ongoing public debate of issues
Popularity of framing as an interpretive construct in media studies resulted in diverse and ambiguous meanings
Thus, a narrow view of framing would be advantageous when testing theory