Agenda setting describes the theory that issues that are heavily stressed or reported on become the important, or salient issues in the eyes of the public. The theory of agenda setting was first studied on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1968 by professors McCombs and Shaw while examining the 1968 presidential election. Their study, which came to be known as The Chapel Hill Study examined the issues that were most frequently reported on by five popular news outlets, and compared them to the issues most important to undecided voters in the upcoming election. The results of this study helped to create what is now agenda setting theory and show how the mainstream media can influence public opinion. Today there are two different levels of agenda setting, Basic Agenda Setting, and Attribute Agenda Setting.
Basic Agenda Setting Theory
Basic agenda setting theory focuses on how the “objects” presented by the media can shape public opinion. In this setting the term object applies in the context of social psychology in that it can be thought of as a thing or issue that an individual has a strong attitude or opinion about. Basic agenda setting theory concerns itself with the topics of inquiry that news outlets chose to present to the public. This type of agenda setting was the basis for Professor McCombs’ and Professor Shaw’s Chapel Hill Study.
Numerous studies concerning basic agenda setting theory have been conducted to corroborate the findings of the Chapel Hill Study. The findings show that the salient issues presented by the mainstream media almost always correspond to the salient issues of the public.
Attribute Agenda Setting
The concept of attribute agenda setting takes the concept of basic agenda setting a step further by examining the attributes, or characteristics of the objects presented in the media. Attribute agenda setting examines how the media’s decision to cover certain aspects of an issue and to not cover others can shape public opinion about that particular issue itself. The body of research surrounding attribute agenda theory suggests that it can be used by the media to not just influence what issues you think about, but also how you think about them.
The Effect Of The Internet On Agenda Setting
Prior to the release of the IPhone in 2007, and the subsequent explosion of internet use around the world, there was a debate amongst agenda setting theory scholars as to how the shift from print and television news sources, to web news sources would impact agenda setting theory. There were two different theories about the implications of internet news; one theory is that the diversity of ideas on the internet would lead to the collapse of agenda setting all together. The other was that the issues in media that led to the rise of agenda setting would plague the internet as well.
The first hypothesis regarding agenda setting in internet news sources states that due to the exorbitant amount of different news outlets and viewpoints on the internet, the public will not be limited to the same redundant news stories; individual views and perspectives will be so varied that agenda setting theory will no longer be applicable. The second hypothesis states that web news outlets will become dominated by a select few powerful news organizations who control the news seen by the public.
Unfortunately it appears that the second hypothesis has rung true. The web media landscape is dominated by much of the same corporations that control print and television news. Such corporations include The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, NBC, CNN, Fox News, and many more. However, the age of internet news has led to the wide spread adoption of agenda setting theory by newer corporations like, Facebook, Twitter, and Google. The use of agenda setting theory by these corporations is particularly frightening because, in some cases, it crosses the from only displaying news stories that support their agenda, and actually silences individuals who express opposing view points, a characteristic that was crucial to the success of the first hypothesis above. With Google being the dominant search engine in America, and Facebook and Twitter owning the majority of social media outlets, the public is basically handing the future of America to these corporations, and through agenda setting theory and targeted censorship they have the power to undermine the very principles of democracy for their own personal gain. After all are elections really free if the only available information is part of a larger political, social, or economic agenda?
