Editing Agenda-setting theory (section)

== Three types of agenda-setting: Policy-makers, media and audience ==
{{anchor | Agenda | Agenda setters }}
{{see also|Political warfare|Media bias|Yellow journalism|Sensationalism|Spin (propaganda)}}

Research shows that the media agenda, audience agenda and policy agenda influence the agenda setting as described in the following section. Rogers and Dearing describe how following types of agenda setting ([[Dependent and independent variables#Dependent variable|dependent variable]] in research) are influenced by other factors:<ref name="Rogers 1988 555–594" />
# "Policy agenda-setting" or "[[Political agenda]] setting"
# "Media agenda-setting" or "[[Agenda building]]"
# "Public/Audience agenda-setting"
Studies have shown that what the media decides to expose correlates with their views on things such as politics, economy and culture. Aside from bias, other critics of the news media claim that news in the United States has become a form of entertainment. Instead of providing the public with the information they need, journalists instead strive to fill the publics' appetite for shocking and sensational headlines.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Molloy |first1=Parker |title=The press is making the same mistakes as 2016 — and time is running out to fix the problem |url=https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/press-making-same-mistakes-2016-and-time-running-out-fix-problem |website=mediamatters.org |date=8 September 2020 |access-date=2020-09-14}}</ref> Countries that tend to have more political power are more likely to receive media exposure. Financial resources, technologies, foreign trade and money spent on the military can be some of the main factors that explain coverage inequality.<ref name="McCombs 2005">{{cite journal|last=McCombs|first=M|title=A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future.|journal=Journalism Studies|year=2005|volume=6|issue=4|doi=10.1080/14616700500250438|pages=543–557 }}</ref>

Mass communication research, Rogers and Dearing argue, has focused a great deal on ''"public agenda setting"'' (e.g. McCombs and Shaw, 1972) and ''"media agenda setting"'', but has largely ignored ''"[[overton window|policy agenda setting]]"'', which is studied primarily by [[political science|political scientists]]. As such, the authors suggest mass communication scholars pay more attention to how the media and public agendas might influence elite policy maker's agendas (i.e. scholars should ask where the President or members of the U.S. Congress get their news from and how this affects their policies). Writing in 2006, Walgrave and Van Aelst took up Rogers and Dearing's suggestions, creating a preliminary theory of political agenda setting, which examines factors that might influence elite policy makers' agendas.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Walgrave|first=S|author2=Van Aelst, P|title=The contingency of the mass media's political agenda setting power: Toward a preliminary theory|journal=Journal of Communication|year=2006|volume=56|pages=88–109|doi=10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00005.x }}</ref>

Three steps of the agenda setting theory influence how the media presents information to the public and how the media tells the public what to think about. Once the media tells the public what to think about, the more policy is enacted.<ref name="West Richard-2014">{{Cite book |last=West Richard |first=Turner Lynn |title=Introducing Communication Theory - Analysis and Application |publisher=McGraw Hill |year=2014 |isbn=978-0-07-353428-2 |edition=5th |location=New York, NY |pages=380–381 |language=English}}</ref>

=== Media agenda ===
The media agenda refers to the most important consideration of discussed issues in negotiated sources. The result of this agenda directly influences the public agenda, which also influences the policy agenda. However, the power of the media agenda depends on certain factors to include media credibility, conflicting evidence, the extent of shared values between the people and the media, and the publics need for guidance.<ref name="West Richard-2014" />

There are several negative statements that people have to say about the way this theory affects the media. One complaint is that “media users are not ideal.” This is because sometimes people do not focus on details. The second complain is that “the effect is weakened for people who have made up their mind.” This is something that is also true. Lastly, the complain is that “media cannot create problems.” The problems occur through media but media is not the problem. [106]

=== Public agenda ===
The public agenda is what the media agenda wants the public to think about through the interaction of mass media. This type of agenda influences the public through personal experience and interpersonal communication. The indicators of real world events directly influence what the public thinks about and the importance of an agenda issue or an event. This agenda interacts with what is considered important by policymakers to create the policy agenda.<ref name="West Richard-2014" />

Public media has to deal with Political Communication as well. A fun fact is that “the agenda setting theory was formally developed by McCombs and Shaw (1972) when they studied the US Presidential Election of 1968.” [107]

=== Policy Agenda ===
The policy agenda is directly related to both the media and public agenda, and is the last step in the agenda setting process. The agenda itself relates to policy and makes reference to the public agenda while it interacts with what policy makers believe.<ref name="West Richard-2014" />

==== Guidance and orientation ====
A contingency condition of the Agenda Setting Theory consists of two variables: ''Relevance'' and ''Uncertainty''.<ref name="West Richard-2014" />

* '''Relevance''' is described as a motivation to seek orientation on an issue from the media due to the perception of personal importance that the issue holds for someone.<ref name="West Richard-2014" />
* '''Uncertainty''' is described as how much information people think they have about an issue.<ref name="West Richard-2014" />
* If people believe what they have is a great deal of information on a specific piece of media information regarding a topic, their uncertainty is low and will not need guidance.<ref name="West Richard-2014" />
* If people are unsure if they have enough information on a specific piece of media information regarding a topic, they will need more guidance from the medias present agenda. The variables interact with one another to explain deviations from the general principles of the Agenda Setting Theory.<ref name="West Richard-2014" />

=== Other Considerations: ===

==== Effects of Media Fragmentation and Individual Consumption Patterns on Agenda-Setting ====
Media fragmentation and individual consumption patterns have become vital in understanding how agenda-setting works within today's society.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gruszczynski |first=Mike |date=2019-12-31 |title=Evidence of Partisan Agenda Fragmentation in the American Public, 1959–2015 |url=https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/83/4/749/5708951 |journal=Public Opinion Quarterly |language=en |volume=83 |issue=4 |pages=749–781 |doi=10.1093/poq/nfz046 |issn=0033-362X|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

===== ''Media Fragmentation'' =====
The idea of a unified public agenda faces increasing challenges with the constant evolution of the media landscape.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Edy |first1=Jill A |last2=Meirick |first2=Patrick C |date=2018-12-31 |title=The Fragmenting Public Agenda: Capacity, Diversity, and Volatility in Responses to the "Most Important Problem" Question |url=https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/82/4/661/5264262?redirectedFrom=fulltext |journal=Public Opinion Quarterly |volume=82 |issue=4 |pages=661–685 |doi=10.1093/poq/nfy043 |issn=0033-362X|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The rise of diverse news sources and platforms has led to a more fragmented media environment, where people selectively consume content aligning with their interests and beliefs.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Gruszczynski |first=Mike |date=2020-08-24 |title=How Media Storms and Topic Diversity Influence Agenda Fragmentation |url=https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/13267 |journal=International Journal of Communication |language=en |volume=14 |pages=22 |issn=1932-8036}}</ref>This fragmentation has significant implications as research indicates agenda diversity, the level of disagreement over what issues are most important, has increased dramatically in recent years.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Wagner |first=John K. |date=2023-01-26 |title=The effect of selective exposure on agenda diversity: An experimental analysis of high-choice media environments and issue consensus |journal=Frontiers in Political Science |language=English |volume=4 |doi=10.3389/fpos.2022.1022782 |doi-access=free |issn=2673-3145}}</ref> This trend is largely attributed to high-choice media environments which allow individuals to avoid news on topics they find less engaging.<ref name=":1" />

===== ''Individual Media Consumption Patterns'' =====
Individual consumption patterns have become increasingly more important in shaping personal agendas. Studies suggest most individual agendas are not consistent with traditional public agendas, emphasizing the need to consider personal influence in the social media era.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Yi |first1=Hongfa |last2=Wang |first2=Yike |date=2022-05-25 |title=Who Is Affecting Who: The New Changes of Personal Influence in the Social Media Era |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |language=English |volume=13 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2022.899778 |doi-access=free |pmid=35693508 |issn=1664-1078|pmc=9174742 }}</ref> As a result, agenda-setting has given rise to the "individual agenda," reflecting individual issue saliences rather than collective public agendas.<ref name=":2" /> Understanding these dynamics is crucial for policymakers, as the rise of agenda diversity can create ambiguity in interpreting public priorities, complicating the policymaking process.<ref name=":1" />