Editing Agenda-setting theory (section)

==Comparison of agenda-setting with policy agenda-building==
As more scholars published articles on agenda-setting theories it became evident that the process involves not only active role of media organizations, but also participation of the public as well as policymakers.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Erbring |first1=Lutz |last2=Goldenberg |first2=Edie N. |last3=Miller |first3=Arthur H. |date=1980 |title=Front-Page News and Real-World Cues: A New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2110923 |journal=American Journal of Political Science |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=16 |doi=10.2307/2110923|jstor=2110923 |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="Agenda Setting-2016">{{cite book |doi=10.4324/9781315538389-37 |chapter=Watergate: An Exploration of the Agenda-Building Process |title=Agenda Setting |date=2016 |pages=287–300 |isbn=978-1-315-53838-9 |editor1-first=David |editor1-last=Protess |editor2-first=Maxwell E |editor2-last=McCombs }}</ref><ref name="Agenda Setting-2016-2">{{cite book |doi=10.4324/9781315538389-14 |chapter=The News Business, Crime, and Fear |title=Agenda Setting |date=2016 |pages=81–84 |isbn=978-1-315-53838-9 |editor1-first=David |editor1-last=Protess |editor2-first=Maxwell E |editor2-last=McCombs }}</ref> Rogers and Dearing highlighted the distinction between agenda-setting and agenda-building, emphasizing the dominant role of either media or the public. "Setting" an agenda refers to the effect of the media agenda on society,<ref name="Dearing 1988 555–5942"/> or transfer of the media agenda to the public agenda,<ref name="Agenda Setting-2016-2" /> while "building" an agenda includes "some degree of reciprocity" between the mass media and society <ref name="Agenda Setting-2016" /> where both media and public agendas influence public policy.<ref name="Dearing 1988 555–5942" />

According to Sun Young Lee and Daniel Riffe, the agenda-building theory speculates that the media does not operate within a vacuum. Instead, it is the result of the societal influences that certain powerful groups exert as a subtle form of control. While some scholars have attempted to uncover certain relationships between information sources and the agenda the news media has created, others have probed who sets the media agenda. Journalists have limited time and resources that can contribute to outside sources getting involved in the news media's gatekeeping process. Many sources can contribute to this agenda-building process in a variety of ways, but researchers are particularly interested in how well informational tools like press releases and media kits function within the news media agenda as a gauge of an organization's public relations success.

Berkowitz has implemented an extensive analysis of agenda-setting and agenda-building theories by introducing the terms policy agenda-setting and policy agenda-building.<ref name="Agenda Setting-2016-2" /> He argues that the term of policy agenda-setting is still appropriate to use when scholars focus solely on the relationship between the media and policymakers.<ref name="Agenda Setting-2016-2" /> However, when the focus is placed not only on policymakers' personal agendas, but also on the broader salient issues where media represent only one indicator of public sentiment, Berkowitz suggests talking about policy agenda-building.<ref name="Agenda Setting-2016-2" />

=== Agenda-building ===
{{See also|Political agenda|Political ethics|Political warfare|Demagogue|Indoctrination|Sensationalism|Spin (propaganda)}}

The agenda-building perspective emphasizes the interplay between mass media, policymakers, and social processes, recognizing ongoing mass involvement's influence on the policy-making process. Cobb and Elder assert that while the public can influence the media agenda, they do not significantly shape it; instead, journalists anticipate audience needs when generating story ideas.

This idea of mass involvement has become more prominent with the rise of the Internet and its potential to make everyone a media content creator. Social media has changed the way people view and perceive things in today's world. Mass involvement within social media lets the general publics voices be heard.

Kim and Lee<ref name="Valenzuela-2019">{{cite book |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.777 |chapter=Agenda Setting and Journalism |title=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication |date=2019 |last1=Valenzuela |first1=Sebastián |isbn=978-0-19-022861-3 }}</ref> noted that the agenda-setting research on the Internet differs from traditional agenda-setting research with respect that the Internet is in competition with traditional media and has enormous capacity for contents' and users' interactivity.

According to Kim and Lee,<ref name="Valenzuela-2019" /> agenda-building through the Internet take the following three steps: 1) Internet-mediated agenda-rippling: an anonymous netizen's opinion spreads to the important agenda in the Internet through online main rippling channels such as blogs, personal homepages, and the Internet bulletin boards. 2) agenda diffusion in the Internet: online news or web-sites report the important agenda in the Internet that in turn leads to spreading the agenda to more online publics. 3) Internet-mediated reversed agenda-setting: traditional media report online agenda to the public so that the agenda spread to both offline and online publics.

Several studies provide evidence that the Internet-community, particularly bloggers, can push their own agenda into public agenda, then media agenda, and, eventually, into policy agenda. In the most comprehensive study to date, Wallsten tracked mainstream media coverage and blog discussion of 35 issues during the 2004 presidential campaign. Using [[time-series analysis]], Wallsten<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wallsten |first1=Kevin |title=Agenda Setting and the Blogosphere: An Analysis of the Relationship between Mainstream Media and Political Blogs |journal=Review of Policy Research |date=November 2007 |volume=24 |issue=6 |pages=567–587 |doi=10.1111/j.1541-1338.2007.00300.x }}</ref> found evidence that journalists discuss the issues that bloggers are blogging about. There are also anecdotal pieces of evidence suggesting bloggers exert an influence on the political agenda. For instance, in 2005 Eason Jordan, the chief news executive at CNN, abruptly resigned after being besieged by the online community after saying, according to various witnesses, that he believed the United States military had aimed at journalists in Iraq and killed 12 of them.<ref>{{cite journal |title=CBS News/NEW YORK TIMES New York State Poll, February 2005: Archival Version |date=6 March 2006 |doi=10.3886/icpsr04317 }}</ref> Similarly, in 2002, [[Trent Lott]] had to resign as [[Party leaders of the United States Senate|Senate majority leader]] due to his inappropriate racist remarks that were widely discussed in the blogosphere.

=== Agenda-setting ===
{{See also|Influence of mass media|Media transparency|Media manipulation|Indoctrination|Sensationalism}}

Some groups have a greater ease of access than others and are thus more likely to get their demands placed on agenda than others.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cobb |first1=Roger W. |last2=Elder |first2=Charles D. |title=The Politics of Agenda-Building: An Alternative Perspective for Modern Democratic Theory |journal=The Journal of Politics |date=1971 |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages=892–915 |doi=10.2307/2128415 |jstor=2128415 }}</ref> For instance, policymakers have been found to be more influential than the overall group of news sources because they often better understand journalists' needs for reliable and predictable information and their definition of newsworthiness.<ref name="Agenda Setting-2016-2" /> Government-affiliated news sources have higher success rates in becoming media agenda and have been found by a number of scholars to be the most frequently appearing of sources at the local, state, and national levels.<ref name="Agenda Setting-2016-2" /> News sources can also provide definitions of issues, thus determining the terms of future discussion and framing problems in particular ways<ref name="Agenda Setting-2016-2" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hilgartner |first1=Stephen |last2=Bosk |first2=Charles L. |title=The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model |journal=American Journal of Sociology |date=July 1988 |volume=94 |issue=1 |pages=53–78 |doi=10.1086/228951 }}</ref>

The relationship of media and policymakers is symbiotic and is controlled by the shared culture of unofficial set of ground rules as journalists need access to official information and policymakers need media coverage; nevertheless the needs of journalists and policymakers are often incompatible because of their different time orientation as powerful sources are at their best in routine situations and react more slowly when crisis or disaster occur.<ref name="Agenda Setting-2016-2" /><ref name="Dearing 1988 555–5942" /> Consequently, policymakers who understand the rules of this culture the best will be most capable of setting their agendas and issue definitions.<ref name="Agenda Setting-2016-2" /> Simultaneously, media also influences policymakers when government officials and politicians value the amount of media attention given to an issue as an indirect indication of public interest in the issue.<ref name="Dearing 1988 555–5942" />