Agenda-setting theory

Agenda Setting (English ) or agenda -setting refers to the setting of specific topics. In political science agenda setting is especially perceived as a part of the designed in the 1950s the policy cycle.

In the journalism and communication science is concerned, the empirical communication research and media effects research, the Agenda Setting Approach ( " Thematisierungs approach," theming theory ) with the theming function and the structure function of the mass media. This approach also forms the basis for the theory of the spiral of silence. An extension of the approach is the agenda -building theory of Lang & Lang from 1981.

Emergence of the approach in journalism

The basis of the theory of agenda settings forms the thesis of Bernard C. Cohen ( 1963), the media would indeed not have much influence on what the public thinks about individual subjects, but a significant impact on what it makes itself ever thought. The communication scientists McCombs and Shaw have this theory in the context of an investigation, called the Chapel Hill study, ahead of the U.S. presidential election campaign demonstrated empirically in 1968 and published in an article in Public Opinion Quarterly in 1972, when they were the first to concept of agenda-setting introduced. Under a theme to be understood here controversial issues and problems of society.

Using content analysis compared McCombs and Shaw in her essay Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media in 1972, the rank order of the topics in the media with the issues on the public agenda ranking, which they found in surveys. The result: between media agenda and the public agenda was a high positive correlation (over 90 percent).

However, this first study to set an agenda exhibited various methodological flaws: The sample was small, the media use was not collected, only aggregate data were evaluated. Particular criticism was that the researchers had created their study as a cross -sectional study, although the interactions between public and media agenda can be seen only in longitudinal studies.

Models of Agenda - Setting Research

In the agenda-setting research, there are three models:

How effective the agenda-setting effect is depends on the intrusiveness ( obtrusiveness ) Topic: For experienced directly topics ( weather, etc.), the effect is less than with issues that can hardly be experienced first hand (wars abroad, etc.). Differences also arise from the nature of the medium: television coverage has a rather short-term spotlight effect while reporting in the print media leads to long term agenda-setting.

Effect during the agenda-setting process

For the effect the course of the agenda-setting process, there are six models:

Supporters of the agenda-setting theory are based on strong media: Check the media, with the topics where people deal (control hypothesis). Say the audience takes on the media agenda. Exactly opposite to argue the representatives of the mirroring hypothesis: According to them, the media contents reflect only the opinion and social themes image, so the media agenda arises from the public agenda.

Development of the agenda-setting approach and criticism

The development of the theory takes into account four intervening variables in the agenda-setting process:

Ray Funkhousers study " Issues of the 60s ," adds the research design for agenda-setting studies to control the size of reality. This goes into the study of statistical data or similar. His study is based essentially the study of McCombs and Shaw, on the correlation of media agenda and the public agenda. Also, Funkhouser was able to prove that the media do not reflect the actual problems of reality. " The news media did not give a true picture of what was happening in society during the 60s ." The coverage was either the development or advance made ​​no connection with her ​​recognize. Funkhouser had therefore determined by a strong discrepancy between media and public agenda and the actual reality development.

Originally, the agenda - setting approach dealt mainly with the teaching of subjects importance by the media. In the meantime, however, the effect has been integrated on attitudes and behavior of the audience in the concept. This is summarized under the term " second-level agenda-setting ". In the second-level agenda-setting, it is no longer about the agenda setting of the media per se, but about the potential of the media in terms of theme attributes. This is therefore generated by framing. This refers to "the selection of restricted number of thematically related attributes for inclusion on the media agenda When a Particular object is Discussed " So media steer through selection, emphasis and omission attention to certain issues and items and give the information a frame ( " frame " ). Thus, the classification of information for the recipient is facilitated. By framing certain aspects are emphasized, while others recede into the background. Thus, certain reviews of a topic are suggested: "To frame is to select some aspects of a Perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in seeking a way to promote a Particular problem- definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and / or treatment recommendation. " another concept that under the keyword" is locates second-level agenda-setting ", is priming. The concept describes that media content back previous recorded information about a mediated issue in memory of the audience back to the first place.

A top Offeree already in connection with the study by McCombs and Shaw point of criticism concerns the research design of agenda-setting studies. Cross-sectional analyzes are inadequate to demonstrate that the media agenda influences the public agenda. Finally, each agenda is only measured at a time. Therefore, it can not be excluded that the public agenda has been influenced by other factors, or has even been the reverse influence: It is also conceivable that the audience influenced the media agenda. Methodologically, therefore, lend themselves to time-shifted cross-correlations ( "Cross - Lagged Correlations "). Here, the relationship between the media at the time agenda, the first measurement ( T1) and the public at the time agenda, the second measurement (T2 ) is calculated, and the relationship between the audience agenda at time t1 and the time t2 of the media agenda. If the correlation coefficient is greater for the first than for the latter context, the agenda-setting hypothesis can be regarded as confirmed.

Critics of the theory criticized mainly mediated omnipotence of the media and the neglect of sociological theming processes ( group behavior, etc. ). Meanwhile, there are also studies that examine how the audience influences the media and pretending these specific issues. In studies of Brosius and Kepplinger (1990) and Brosius and Weimann (1995 ) has also been demonstrated that direction of influence. Also, studies that examine the role of interpersonal communication in agenda-setting processes are, in the meantime.

Agenda Setting in the election campaign

Even in political science, the concept of agenda setting is especially to explain the priorities of certain topics of political parties to the application. In addition, the buzzword of the Agenda Surfing refers to the taking up of an unplanned event (eg the Elbe flood 2002) for their own benefit and political profiling. In contrast, the attempt to displace a particular event of the political agenda is circumscribed (eg by setting a completely different priorities ) with the concept of agenda cutting.