Martin Joby Agenda-setting 5/20/05
The media's influence on public thought is unquestionable. Throughout recent history, through the development of modern mass media, we see that the media have the ability to foster wars, convict innocent men, and largely influence the outcome of presidential elections. Part of this influence is called agenda-setting. Agenda-setting is the communicative theory that mass media dictate what the public thinks about. "Mass media have the ability to transfer the salience of items on their news agenda to the public agenda," Walter Lippman writes. What we see is the media have the ability to tell the public not what to think, but what to think about. The media set the parameters of public thought. Part of what makes this a difficult theory to test is that agenda is not an easy thing to quantify. The authors of this theory measured the media agenda by evaluating several media outlets, mainly TV and print media, and judged on the criteria of position and length. The results showed that five underlying themes existed in the media's agenda: foreign policy, law and order, fiscal policy, public welfare, and civil rights. Through a series of surveys, it became clear that not only were the same five issues featured as part of public agenda, but that they appeared in the same order of importance. But this correlation raises another important question. Could it be the other way around? Does media agenda simply mirror that of the public's? Is it that the media
creates public interest, or does it simply complacent with public interest? This is a chicken-and-egg type question that is difficult to answer. Regardless, there is a distinct correlation between media agenda and public agenda. Although I feel that both theories are overly simplistic, I would tend to agree with the former. To doubt that the media have a very strong power over public thought seems irrational, and the chapter on Media Effects supports this. For example, during the Civil Rights movement, public opinion didn't start turning in favor of African Americans until the media began running pictures and video feed of race riots in Birmingham. The public reacted to the powerful images of blacks being beaten, hosed, and attacked by police dogs while marching for equal rights. Support for the Vietnam War didn't begin to wane until after journalists returned home with horrific stories and pictures from My Lai and Saigon. Images of thousands of United States citizens being killed, featured against the backdrop of massive, nation-wide protests, were enough to sway good a portion of public opinion. The book mentions a "lagging time"- that is, a period of time in which a news story debuts, and the time it takes to fully ingrain itself into the public's mind. The example of Watergate is perfect, as is the example of "Veggie-gate"- the recent public outcry regarding Terri Schiavo. The story began running locally almosy eighteen months ago, but it didn't gain national front page status until the past few months, even though Ms. Schiavo's condition (I refuse to call her Terri), had not changed at all. One of the biggest flaws in the textbook's research and supporting examples is that they are extremely dated, with few exceptions. While the book touches on framing, the issue can't be covered in adequate depth without examining examples of framing in
the very recent past. The perfect and most notorious example of framing is my good buddy Armstrong Williams and the Pundit Payola scandal. Need proof that the media influences peoples opinions, and not just their agenda? Well, the government paid Williams $240,000 to covertly endorse No Child Left Behind (President Bush's education initiative). Williams was not alone. Molly Gallagher and Mark McManus were also involved in similar contracts. Ironically enough, although the story's obvious newsworthiness, the stroy disappeared soon after broke, largely in favor of the Schiavo case. Further complicating the issue of framing is corporate agenda. We cannot reduce this theory to merely the media and the public. Those who control the media- not the editors and publishers, but the Rupert Murdochs and the Michael Eisners- have their own agenda, and in many occasions that agenda seems to trump the other two. This bias, an obvious example of framing, can be most clearly seen on television news. When Fox News covers a story featuring President Bush, it often also features American flag graphics and some glorifying nationalistic catchphrase. Their use of pundits, as opposed to actual journalists, allows them to get away with editorializing under the guise of fair and balanced news" It is widely known among what I would describe as the "culture of media-literacy" that Fox has a distinct right-wing agends, and exercises it through the use of framing. What the public needs to realize is that the media do have an agenda. That agenda is influenced by corporate agenda. People also need to understand the powerful influence both of these agendas have on public thought. It is absolutely necessary to do so in order to form your own, unbiased agenda.