Agenda-Setting Theory

The agenda-setting theory, which initially grew out of communications research on political socialization, defines agenda setting as the "creation of public awareness and concern of salient issues by the news media."

In other words, the media do not necessarily tell us what to think, but rather what to think about.

For example, through heavy coverage of such issues in a political campaign, media may tell us that past marital infidelity of candidates or whether they smoked marijuana in college are important issues on which to base our vote.  Other issues covered in less depth, such as their positions on taxation or foreign policy, are thus positioned as less important.

Although it has been explored most fully in regard to news and politics, agenda setting is also relevant to other media issues.  For example, in it is basic ignoring of religion, mainstream entertainment media in the United States are sending a message that spiritual issues are not important factors in people's lives.

Soap operas and movies that continually show characters engaging in presumably unprotected casual sex with no apparent concern for consequences like HIV infection  or pregnancy are subtly telling us that those concerns are not important.

One way than an agenda can be set is through the use of framing.  The way a problem is described selects or highlights certain aspects of its reality and neglects or downplays others.  This will affect how people respond to it.

EXAMPLE:

Is some indiscretion described as a "caper," an "affair" or a "scandal?"

Jamieson and Waldman argued that press coverage of the U.S. Presidential election campaign of 2000 framed the candidates as the "lying panderer" (Al Gore) and the "ineffective bumbler" (George W. Bush) and that the media and the public noticed details consistent with the frames and neglected details that were inconsistent.



George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000