Agenda-Setting Theory of Maxwell McCombs & Donald Shaw

1. 30 Agenda-Setting Theoryof Maxwell McCombs & Donald Shaw

2. Slide 2 The Original Agenda: What Not to Think, But What to Think About • Agenda-settinghypothesis – 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. 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 • Mediaagenda – pattern of news coverage across major print and broadcast media, as measured by prominence and length of stories • Publicagenda – 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. 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. 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'sGendered Attributes Shrill Bitchy Every man's first ex-wife Out of control Stupid Hysterical

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

11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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