Toward a paradigm of media agenda‐setting effect: Agenda‐setting as a process

Abstract

Traditional agenda‐setting studies have usually focused on the influence of the media on the public agenda. However, little or no research attention has been paid to agenda‐setting as process. The authors contend that the persuasive power of the news media is embedded in the structure of news definition and presentation, with sources exploiting such institutionalized aspects of news coverage to influence the determination of news. As such, it will not be proper to ascribe agenda‐setting power to the media alone, but it will be appropriate to examine the process of this influence in a new analysis of the role of the media in agenda‐setting. This paper is an attempt to stake out a new conceptual approach to media agenda‐setting effects, emphasizing the process rather than the effects of this influence. It calls for a shift from the “effect‐centric”; focus of present agenda‐setting research to a process‐effect oriented approach. It argues that for the actual agenda‐setting effects to be determined, it is necessary to find the locus of this influence—i.e., the actual agenda‐setters. In essence, the paper asks the question, who sets the agenda of the media? To answer this question, the paper proposes a paradigm that would identify crucial and contingent conditions, and would explain their roles and sequential effects in the agenda‐setting process. The proposed paradigm identifies three distinct stages in the agenda‐setting process: Issue Creation, Issue Expansion and Issue Consumption, and three involved constituencies; Interest Croups (politicians and bureaucrats, etc.), Media and Audience. The paper points out that the three constituencies play active roles at the three stages. It argues, however, that some constituencies are more active than others at some stages. The paradigm, the authors suggest, could be operationalized in two different ways: (1) a combinatorial method, or (2) a quasi‐experimental method.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.