The theory of Agenda-Setting by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw can be reduced to the basic idea that the media tells viewers, “Not what to think, but what to think about.” Their theory “represents a back-to-the-basics approach to mass communication research” (Griffin, 2006, p. 396). The argument of the theory is that the mass media and advertising of this country have come such a long way that they are no longer just reporting the news or informing the public, and those media institutions are not telling audiences what to think about a certain issue; they are telling the public what issue they need to have on their minds. This theory seemed so obvious that when it was published the “theory found an appreciative audience among mass communication researchers” (Griffin, 2006, p. 396). By the standards presented in this theory, it can be assumed that if a news or advertising medium is not successful in directing people’s thoughts, it is not doing what it is supposed to do in this day and age and will not be successful. In creating the theory, McCombs and Shaw found that the audience “apparently [learns], furthermore, in direct proportion to the emphasis placed on the campaign issues by the mass media” (1972, p. 177).
Agenda setting presents a sad side of the television world that shows that people have little control over their own beliefs beyond whatever news channel they turn to in the evening. Through this method, the mediums discussed above not only tell people what subject to think about, but they also tell them how to think about that subject. The researchers found “position and length of story as the two main criteria of prominence” (Griffin, 2006, p. 397). This was especially present in United States presidential campaigns, as news stations often have a hidden agenda. Depending on whether the ownership of a station was traditionally liberal or conservative, the slightly twisted media story attempted to convince the audience that a certain candidate is right for the job. Studies show that this tactic does influence viewers’ opinions of the issue at hand, especially if they continually tune into the same news programs on the same channels (Griffin, 2006, p. 399). According to research, those who are most affected by the underlying messages of media and advertising are those who have a high degree of uncertainty, but also have a reason to care about the issue at hand.
Although this theory is usually applied to media, it also has a great effect on advertising. The entire premise of advertising is to alter the way people go through their daily routine in order to make them purchase or support something they normally would not. The people who are greatly influenced by these advertisements are those who have a need for orientation which “arises from high relevance and uncertainty” (Griffin, 2006, p. 400). People are more likely to give into what is being presented if they are uncertain about the subject matter, or if it already relates in some way to the person’s life (Griffin, 2006, p. 401). Advertisements are able to alter people’s views more explicitly than news entertainment media because when people take in advertising, they expect to be presented with something that someone wants them to purchase. In some instances, this makes it much harder for advertising as an influential medium to achieve success than the news entertainment media because people already have their guard up and their own personal agenda is probably more resistant.
Agenda setting has been probably most prevalent in the realm of advertising during political campaigns. A recent study from 2007 found that when political advertising was used in an experiment, “There was an agenda-setting effect in the studies in [the] sample” (Benoit, Chattopadhyay, & Leshner, 2007, p. 516). This study found that one of the main elements of political advertising was its ability to alter the views people had toward a specific candidate. All types of mass media have an easier time of setting people’s agenda through this technique because, “more than ever before, candidates go before the people through the mass media rather than in person” (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p. 176). Even though this was just one example of advertising, this study showed that there is no doubt that advertising is attempting to set someone’s agenda (Benoit et al., 2007, p. 511). While the agenda of advertising is no doubt more explicit than those of the other media, it allows the advertisers to ramp up their methods in order to gain the ability to influence people. At the same time, it also makes the advertising avenue easier because people are open to being sold something when they are watching an advertisement.
Agenda setting had been used in many ways over the history of media and advertising in order to influence audiences even before the theory was established. The theory also runs on the understanding that the public agenda has to already be open and accepting to the subject matter that is being discussed in order to be influenced by it. More recently, McCombs and Shaw added to their theory and edited it by saying the outside influence “not only tell[s] us what to think about, but they can also tell us how to think about some objects” (Pan, 2008, p. 31). This takes the influence of the effect of media or advertising to a greater extreme because it is not only making one focus on a certain issue or product, but it is telling that person how and what to think about that item. This second level is often linked to the term “framing”, similarly used in relation to politics, which is a way in which a candidate’s camp attempts to alter the views of the public on a candidate (Pan, 2008, p. 31). In his 2008 study, researcher Po-Lin Pan found that the agenda setting criteria used in the United States during elections is also used to depict American leaders in a positive way in other countries, specifically China. This idea of framing is used all over the airwaves during political races to attempt to frame how the public sees the two opposing candidates.
One important aspect that advertising departments have to take into account when they are attempting to send messages to set the public’s agenda is that they cannot attempt to change their focus too often. It is because of this that “[t]he time lag that one would expect is very much connected to the proposed mechanism underlying agenda-setting effects” (Kenski & Stroud, 2007, p. 542). If the company alters their message too frequently, the public is less likely to be able to form a relationship with the company. This is especially true if the advertised product is not one of the nation’s large conglomerates. While a company such as McDonald’s can change its slogan every financial quarter, if a smaller company attempts to do this, it could fall out of the public’s recognition (Kenski et al., 2007, p. 543). In order to stay in the minds of those the company is targeting, the company has to continually present the public with the same message about their company so that there is no confusion between what is being sold and the public’s views of what’s available.
Agenda setting is something that affects to everyone, and most people are not even aware it is happening while they are being subjected to it. This is because media and advertising “have the ability to transfer the salience of items on their news agendas to the public agenda” (McCombs et al. qtd in Griffin, 2006, p. 395). While the original part of the theory which claimed that, “people would attend only to news and views that didn’t threaten their established beliefs,” was found to be true, the researchers eventually found that their theory actually delved much deeper into setting one’s agenda than they originally realized (Griffin, 2006, p. 396). Finding this helped develop the theory to where it is today, to the point where the true understanding of how much influence the entertainment news media and advertising truly have is evident. This theory has proved to be so important that it is “among fifteen milestones in mass communication research” (Davie & Maher, 2006, p. 359). This theory no doubt brought the idea of agenda setting to the forefront of the communication world and even though many researchers have added on to the theory since its inception, the theory is still considered a ground breaker for its time.
Works Cited
Davie, W.R. & Maher, M.T. (2006). Maxwell McCombs: Agenda-Setting Explorer.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 358-364.
Griffin, E. (2006).
A First Look at Communication Theory: Sixth Edition. Madison, Wisconsin: McGraw Hill.
Kenix, L.J. (2005). A Comparison of Environmental Pollution Coverage in the Mainstream, African American, and Other Alternative Press.
The Howard Journal of Communications, 16, 49-70.
Kenski, K. & Stroud, N.J. (2007). From Agenda Setting to Refusal Setting: Survey Nonresponse as a Function of Media Coverage Across the 2004 Election Cycle.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 539-559.
Laversuch, I. M. (2007). The Politics of Naming Race and Ethnicity: Language Planning and Policies Regulating the Selection of Racial Ethnonyms Used by the US Census 1990-2010.
Current Issues in Language Planning,8, 365-382.
Pan, P.L. (2008). U.S. News Coverage of New Leaders in China: An Investigation of Agenda-Setting Abilities of U.S. Newspapers and Government.
China
Media Research, 4, 29-35.
Rice, R.E. (1992). Task Analyzability, Use of New Media, and Effectiveness: A Multi-Site Exploration of Media Richness.
Organization Science, 3, 475-500.
