See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321698436

Agenda Setting Theory

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS READS
0 25,858

1 author:

Nor Razinah Mohd Zain

International Islamic University Malaysia
20 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Alternative Financing Modes for Higher Learning Institutions - SRI Sukuk, Social Impact Bonds, and Public-Private Partnership View project

Islamic Fintech View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nor Razinah Mohd Zain on 09 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Agenda Setting Theory

Nor Razinah Binti Mohd Zain

[email protected]

1.0 Introduction
The beginning of agenda setting theory can be traced as far as 1922, when Walter
Lippmann expresses his concern on the vital role that mass media can do in influencing
the setting of certain image on the public‟s mind (Lippmann, 1922: 9-16). In portraying
the influence of mass media, Lippmann gives an example of individuals who supposed
to be enemies while their countries are at war. Instead of becoming enemies, without
having access to information about the war through media, those individuals are able to
live harmoniously in a secluded island. Lippmann indicates on how mass media can set
a particular agenda which can influence the opinions of the public. However, he never
uses the term „agenda setting theory‟ in his book. Nevertheless, he did generate the
foundation for the agenda setting theory.
In the latter years from Lippmann‟s time, the term „agenda setting theory‟ is
popularized. One of the most significant researches which contribute to this theory is
written by McCombs and Shaw (1972). They observe on the capacity of mass media in
influencing the voters‟ opinion on the presidential campaign of 1968. From their
research, McCombs and Shaw (1972: 187) found out that mass media did have certain
percentage on those members of the public who frequently referred to information as
provided by the media. Such percentage is increased for those who are driven with the
enthusiastic in following up with the presidential campaign‟s information.
As acknowledged by Matsaganis and Payne (2005), agenda setting theory is
vastly developed in which more than 350 researches were done after McCombs and
Shaw‟s findings in 1972. These can be seen from the works as done by Lippmann (1922);
Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet (1948); Lazarsfeld and Merton (1964); Berelson,
Lazarsfeld, and McPhee (1954); Cohen (1963); McCombs and Shaw (1972); Funkhouser
(1973); and Cobb and Elder (1983).
2.0 Objectives of the Study
Before a further discussion is put forwarded, it is proper to present the objectives
of this present study. This study stands with two main objectives. Firstly, this study is
aimed (a) to study on what is meant by agenda setting theory. Secondly, this study tries
(b) to identify what is inter-media building in connection to agenda setting theory. This
study is written to follow the above mentioned objectives.

3.0 Research Questions

There are two specific research questions that this study tries to answer. Such
research questions are developed to follow and in accordance to the objectives of the
study. The first research question is (a) what is the agenda setting theory. Following the
first research question, this study is also tries to provide a relevant answer to the second
research question which is (b) what is inter-media building?

4.0 Significance of the Study

This study is considered as significant, especially in providing a comprehensive
understanding on the agenda setting theory with the implication to the public at large. It
is an exposure of the truth behind the role of mass media in influencing the opinion of
the public, whereupon their role is not limited in providing information. The public at
large is supposedly able to scrutinize the information given to them through the medium
of mass media.
The connection between mass media in providing information to the public is
undeniably important to be examined. This study explores the influence of one media to
another media by viewing the inter-media building in accessing the information. By
knowing such inter-media building, awareness can be generated among the public at
large to be more careful in believing the information that they receive from the mass
media. So much so, the public at large can appreciate the truth of the information that
they receive.
5.0 Justification of the Study
The agenda setting theory of mass media has played a crucial role in determining
on how the mass media affects the media audiences since the conception of the theory.
There are a lot of studies and discussions have continued to reflect the influential
relationship between the agenda of the mass media to the public at large. The new
media continues to advance and becomes more powerful in in spreading the mass
media‟ agenda. The new media has advantages in comparison to old media. By having
such in view, it is considered justifiable to make a study on what is agenda theory setting
and the inter-media building concept.

6.0 Methodology
In acquiring the relevant information and knowledge for this study, secondary
data is mainly used and obtained from library research. Additionally, arm-chaired
method is used in finding the latest articles and researches from the available online
databases from the internet. Majority of articles and researches are founded in
connection to mass communication in general.
This study appreciates both qualitative and quantitative secondary data and
evaluate such information accordingly to answer the research questions and aiming at
achieving the objectives of this study.

7.0 The Agenda Setting Theory

The agenda setting theory is a theory that discusses on how the mass media
influences in making a certain issue as a public agenda. The public agenda is the main
focus or prime issue which the members of the society or public concern about. The
term agenda setting theory is first used by McCombs and Shaw (1972). This theory
elaborates the connection in term of relationships between the emphasis that the mass
media put as an issue and the media audiences or the public‟s reaction or attributes to
such issue (Littlejohn and Foss: 2009).
The agenda setting theory begins as an explanation on how the mass media
affects to change the pattern in political behaviour during elections (Cohen: 1963).
Subsequently, the theory has inspired and developed hundreds of latter explorations on
how the mass media primes and frames issues for their audiences. Not only limited to
such, the discussion also covers on how the mass media colours a particular event for
their media audiences (Matsaganis and Payne: 2005). Therefore, the mass media can be
considered as responsible in influencing and shaping the public opinion and agenda.
Such influence of mass media on the public agenda or opinion can happen intentionally
or unintentionally (Iyengar & Kinder: 1987).
Continuously, the agenda setting theory stands as important theory not only on
mass communication, but extends to other related social science studies such as political
communication (Reese: 1991). Under the agenda setting theory, the mass media is
believed not to possess the ability to set the public agenda especially in matters of
opinions or attitudes (Cohen: 1963). However, the mass media has a particular access in
contributing to or influencing the audience‟s perceptions, values, focus and priorities.
With such influence from the mass media, the media audiences tend to form their own
opinion or focus on those issues that are considered as worthy of inclusion on their
mental agendas (Littlejohn and Foss: 2009).
Throughout the years, the research scholarships on agenda setting give emphasis
on more important issues such as: (a) who responsible in setting the mass media‟s
agenda?; (b) what are the mass media‟s agendas, and (c) how far the mass media able to
influence or frame the public agenda?
7.1 Who responsible in setting the mass media’s agenda?
Based on a research done (McCombs and Shaw: 1993), they are in opinion that
the public agenda has a certain effect on the media agenda. To a certain extent, the mass
media have to follow the demands of the public or the media audiences‟ interests. These
can be seen from the ratings, audience studies, market research and survey, and the
audiences‟ consumption patterns (Littlejohn and Foss: 2009). This is acceptable since
the mass media are still connected to the surroundings of business and market. And,
such surroundings are driven from the interests of the public and public agenda. The
mass media are obliged to response to what their audiences want and on what they
know that will attract and sell to the media audiences (Krugman: 1963).
Other researchers suggest that the agenda setting can be set up by politicians and
public relations practitioners (Walgrave & Aelst: 2006; McCombs and Shaw: 1993;
Roberts & McCombs: 1994). These researches open the possibility of the government‟s
role in promoting their policy through the agenda setting of mass media. This is heavily
agreeable when it comes to election periods or political agenda (Walgrave, Soroka &
Nuytemans: 2008; Rogers and Dearing: 1988).
7.2 What are the mass media’s agendas?
The scholars such as Everett Rogers and James Dearing (1988) believed that the
agenda setting theory in connection with mass media stands with interrelationships
between three agendas. Such agendas are identified as (i) public agenda, (ii) media
agenda and (iii) policy agenda. They claim such policy agenda can be developed based
on the issues that the governments and other policy makers create. Occasionally, the
reality of the world offers a new issue as a setting of agenda in mass media. Such can
happened in referring to natural disasters such as earthquake or tsunami or wars. This
will equally affect directly or indirectly the above mentioned agendas. Based on their
discussion, another theory is developed and known as „agenda building‟. By referring to
Rogers and Dearing (1988), such theory is more appropriate to be considered in
comparison to agenda setting theory.
7.3 How far the mass media able to influence or frame the public agenda?
The earliest research was done by Bernard Cohen (1963). He believes that mass
media only tell on what to think about and not on what to think. Therefore, the mass
media is responsible in delivery of information and not to set what the opinion of the
audiences. Unfortunately, contrary to Cohen‟s opinion, subsequent studies indicate that
the mass media can influence the audience‟s thinking. Directly or indirectly contribute
to the forming of the audiences‟ opinions (Wanta, Golan & Lee: 2004; McCombs &
Shaw: 1972; McCombs & Shaw: 1997).
From such discussions, the scholars extend the scope of the agenda setting to the
cognitive aspects of the agenda setting function such as the structuring of the agenda by
the mass media and the influences on how the audiences consider or feel on the agenda.
These essentially can be done through concepts of framing and priming. When a certain
issue is framed and primed by the mass media, such issue is immediately visible to the
audiences as important and influence on how the audiences or public correspond to it
(Scheufele: 2000; Scheufele & Tewksbury: 2007).
7.4 Limitations to the Mass Media’s Agenda Setting
There is a continuing debate between scholars who are proponents to Cohen‟s
opinion (1988) with the opponents of such view. The debate circles around the core
questions of media influence, namely, how directly and to what degree the media set the
public agenda. Some of the recent studies propose that personal variables can mitigate
the effects of media agenda setting on individual or audience (Matsaganis & Payne:
2005; Gross & Aday: 2003; McCombs & Shaw: 1997).
These majorly contributed from the background education and understanding of
the media audiences on the issue or agenda which is presented by the mass media
(Carter: 1996). Their opinions are more difficult to be influenced by the information that
they received from the mass media (Matsaganis & Payne: 2005; Littlejohn and Foss:
2009; Coleman: 1993). Moreover, such influence from the mass media in forming
opinion is impossible to those people who lived far away from the information provided
or to those who are difficult to get the accessibility of the information from the mass
media (Lippmann: 1922).
8.0 Inter-Media Building
In the advancement of technology, the emergence of new types of media is
unstoppable. From newspaper and radio, mass media moves to prefer digitalized
version of mass media such as television, online internet and other digital devices such
as iPhone 5 and Samsung Galaxy. By having new media, the accessibility of information
becomes easier and delivery of information becomes more faster (Jenkins: 2006).
Following the fast track of development in communication, mass media become more
influential in setting the agenda and contribute to the formation of public‟s opinion or at
least the members of the audiences.
Such forms of media are divided into two major types. They are known as: (a) the
old media and (b) the new media. The old media or traditional media is a form of mass
communication which existed before the existence of internet and digitalized devises
(Jenkins: 2006). Television, radio, newspapers, magazines, newsletters, tax press and
other print publications are some forms of old media. New media is the mass
communication which uses digital technologies such as internet. It involves on-demand
access to information at any time through the use of any digital device (Schivinski &
Dabrowski: 2014). There are variety forms of new media such as internet forums, blogs,
wikis, podcasts, picture-sharing, music-sharing and video-sharing. Additionally, there
are variety of mediums that can be used in accessibility to new media, such as Google
Groups, MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr and Twitter. The scholars give focus on
discussion on the influence of new media to the old media (Jenkins: 2006; Livingstone:
2002; Singer: 2005).
The inter-media building in connection to the agenda setting theory is a concept
which evaluate on how one media‟s agenda influences another media‟s agenda. It is a
discussion on how the agenda of the old media is able to influence the agenda of new
media or vice versa. In comparison to the old media, the new media is faster in delivery
of information and easier in accessibility to the information. By only one touch of a
finger, an individual will have a less time in acquiring the information. The new media is
also more popular among teenagers, youths and more trendy for new generation
(Livingstone: 2002; Singer: 2005). By having such advantages, the new media is more
influential in spreading information and setting a particular agenda (Anderson: 2000).
On such regards, new media have a huge influence on the old media and able to
contribute in setting the agenda for the public‟s view or media audiences in short time.
By saying so, several factors in inter-media building which can be contributed to
the influence of new media to the old media in term of setting the mass media‟s agenda,
which are: (a) speedy in time, (b) easy accessibility, (c) faster in delivery of information
and (d) popularity among the media audiences (Jenkins: 2006; Livingstone: 2002;
Singer: 2005 and Anderson: 2000). The faster the device used for delivery of
information and communication, the faster the agenda can be set up by the mass media.
However, at a certain extent, the old media has its own influential towards the
new media. This can be traced from journalism setting and writing. This is discussed by
Singer (2005) on how the old media‟s agenda setting and journalism in printed form can
be used for blogs.
9.0 Findings
Agenda setting theory is an important theory in mass communication. The
agenda setting of mass media can be derived from the public agenda. The said agenda
setting can also be set up through government‟s policy or by politicians. As identified by
Rogers and Dearing (1988), there are three main agenda setting which are: (i) public
agenda, (ii) media agenda and (iii) policy agenda. Based on Cohen‟s opinion, the agenda
setting of mass media only provides the media audiences on what they should think
about and not to set what to think.
 Oppositely, the mass media is proven through recent researches that they are
influential in setting up the audiences on what to think. However, the agenda setting of
mass media will not have value for those individuals who are disbelieved in the
credibility of the information provided. The new media is more influential in
comparison to old media. Thanks to the new media‟s speedily in providing the
information and ease in accessibility. It is found from secondary data that new media is
more influential in setting the agenda in comparison to the old media.

10.0 Conclusion
The mass media can influence on the opinions of the media audiences or public
at large. Such can be done through agenda setting of the mass media on a certain
particular issue or agenda. The faster the device used in delivery of information, more
influential the mass media is. In catering the influences of mass media to the society or
media audiences, the society or public should be given proper knowledge, so they can
evaluate the overall facts and they can form their opinion correctly to the issue at hand.
This is important to avoid the society or media audiences to be dependent in totality on
the information delivered by the mass media.

References
Anderson, J. W. (2000). New media in the Muslim world: The emerging public
sphere. ISIM Newsletter, 5, 1.
Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Williams, N. (1954). Voting. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Bosso, C. J. (1987). Pesticides and politics: The life cycle of a public issue. Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Carter, V. (1996). Do media influence learning? Revisiting the debate in the context of
distance education. Open Learning, 11(1), 31-40.
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of
agenda-building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Cohen, B.C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Coleman, C. L. (1993). The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication
on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research, 20(4), 611-
628.
Funkhouser, G. R. (1973). The issues of the sixties: An exploratory study in the dynamics
of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(1), 62-75
Gross, K., & Aday, S. (2003). The scary world in your living room and neighborhood:
Using local broadcast news, neighborhood crime rates, and personal experience
to test agenda setting and cultivation. Journal of Communication, 53(3), 411-426.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D.R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American
opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU
press.
Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without
involvement. Public opinion quarterly, 29(3), 349-356.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1964). Mass communication, popular taste and
organized social action. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas: A series
of addresses (pp. 95-118). New York: Harper.
Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. Transaction Publishers.
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (Eds.). (2009). Encyclopedia of communication
theory (Vol. 1). Sage.
Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and new media: Childhood and the changing
media environment. Sage.
Matsaganis, M. D., & Payne, J. G. (2005). Agenda Setting in a Culture of Fear The
Lasting Effects of September 11 on American Politics and Journalism.American
Behavioral Scientist, 49(3), 379-392.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda‐setting research:
twenty‐five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of communication, 43(2),
58-67.
McCombs, M.E. (1997). New frontiers in agenda setting: Agendas of attributes and
frames. Mass Communication Review, 24, 4-24.
McCombs, M.E., & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
Reese, S. D. (1991). Setting the media‟s agenda: A power balance perspective.
Communication Yearbook, 14, 309-340.
Roberts, M., & McCombs, M. (1994). Agenda setting and political advertising: Origins of
the news agenda. Political Communication, 11(3), 249-262.
Rogers, E.M., & Dearing, J.W. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where has it been,
where is it going? Communication Yearbook, 11, 555-594.
Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look
at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication &
Society, 3(2-3), 297-316.
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The
evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication,57(1), 9-20.
Scheufele, D.A., & Tweksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The
evolution of the media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20.
Schivinski, Bruno, & Dabrowski D. (2014). “The Effect of Social-Media Communication
on Consumer Persception of Brands”. Journal of Marketing Communications: 2-
19.
Sheafer, T. (2007). How to evaluate it: The role of story-evaluative tone in agenda
setting and priming. Journal of Communication, 57, 21-39.
Singer, J. B. (2005). The political j-blogger „normalizing‟a new media form to fit old
norms and practices. Journalism, 6(2), 173-198.
Walgrave, S., & Van Aelst, P. (2006). The contingency of the mass media's political
agenda setting power: Toward a preliminary theory. Journal of
Communication, 56(1), 88-109.
Walgrave, S., Soroka, S., & Nuytemans, M. (2008). The Mass Media's Political Agenda-
Setting Power A Longitudinal Analysis of Media, Parliament, and Government in
Belgium (1993 to 2000). Comparative Political Studies, 41(6), 814-836.
 Wanta, W., Golan, G., & Lee, C. (2004). Agenda setting and international news: Media
influence on public perceptions of foreign nations. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 364-377.

View publication stats