Nowadays it is possible to find a few people who do not think that mass media affect, to some extent, public opinion. Admittedly, people find out about numerous events and phenomena from mass media. This is because many citizens do not attend political rallies and therefore rely on television, radio, newspapers and magazines for information. This assumption can be regarded as a basis for the agenda-setting theory.
The theory’s major point is that mass media decide what is the most important news and what event (or person) “deserves” less attention. It is necessary to point out that the basic points of the agenda-setting theory are plausible, and the strength of the theory lies in the fact that media do shape public opinion to certain extent, but the weakness of the theory is that mass media’s impact is somewhat over-estimated.
McCombs and Shaw have written about studies done on the coverage of election campaigns by the media in the 80s, and the percentage of what was actually aired. From the studies, it was found out that the percentage of what was aired was different from what was addressed during the political rally on the ground.
In other words, what was actually emphasized during the rally was different from what was emphasized in the news (McCombs and Ghanem 2003, 70). Later, when the public was asked to comment on what they thought about a certain politician, majority of the answers reflected what was aired on television (McCombs and Ghanem 2003, 75).
For example, a politician may allocate a huge percentage of his rally time on law and order agenda and give little attention on civil rights. A media house may reverse these priorities and concentrate on civil rights more than law and order. As a result, the public would think that this particular politician does not care about law and order (security), but cares more about civil rights.
The writers have also emphasized on the salience of effect created by the media. Most of the upcoming politicians are usually unknown since they are simply not in the news. It was found that, new politicians are usually first mentioned in the newspapers and magazines, and then on television (McCombs and Ghanem 2003, 82).
McCombs and Shaw claim that people “learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information”, in this way media are setting the “agenda” (1972, 176).
Admittedly, this basic assumption of their theory is plausible since mass media do “sort” news and attach different levels of importance to each event and person. Thus, many people follow the set “agenda” and pay more attention to most important and less attention to least important. Besides, this principle works in the same way when it deals with political campaigns.
One of the greatest strengths of the agenda-setting theory is that it presents “a vast wealth of research on the impact of mass media content on the public agenda” (McCombs and Ghanem 2003, 68). The theory reveals the major processes which influence public opinion.
It is especially relevant when considering political campaigns since at present the “information in the mass media becomes the only contact many have with politics” (McCombs and Shaw 1972, 176). Thus, politicians’ pledges are perceived through the vision of mass media. Apparently, when mass media highlight the campaign of a politician and there is nothing said about others, people can forget about the existence of “others”.
The other strength of this agenda is the level of accessibility people have on media. Today, virtually all the homes in America have a television set and even some channels have dedicated their channel to news and consumer advice. Television sets are also found in the waiting room of many offices, cafeterias and bars. Written materials are also easily available on the streets.
News stands display their material clearly for the public to see and entice them to buy. Other politicians have put up billboards during the camping to ensure almost everybody knows that they are running for a seat. Since the agenda setting theory is based on the people accessing the media material, it is apparent that what is on the media affects people’s opinion on a large scale.
The other strength of this theory is based on the fact that most people are usually undecided on who to vote for during the campaigns. Moreover, the undecided voters do not to attend political rallies simply because they do not care or are not concerned. Other voters simply do not believe that these candidates will deliver their promises. Despite of the lack of concern, they have to vote in the end.
When some people were asked on why they voted for some candidates, they mentioned that they liked the way they dressed, talked or even smiled. Therefore, politicians have capitalized a lot on their image in trying to win the election. Over the years, it has been seen that the image politicians present to the public through the media, has many times enabled them to win elections (McCombs and Shaw 1972, 180).
However, apart from the strengths, the agenda-setting theory has quite significant weaknesses. Crespi states that the theory “does not accept the discredited image of all-powerful mass media”, but “does ascribe a major role to them [mass media] in the public opinion process” (1997, 40).
Nevertheless, even the major role of mass media is quite a disputable issue. McCombs and Ghanem claim that the plausibility of the agenda-setting theory is supported by the fact that voters do not have “alternative means of observing the day-to-day changes in the political arena” (2003, 185). However, it is not taken into account that voters are usually exposed to different types of mass media.
Admittedly, various newspapers and magazines set different agendas. Some people prefer reading this or that, newspaper or magazine because it highlights campaigns and activities of a certain politician.
In this case, the voter sets his own agenda by choosing this or that source of information. These cases are not rare; on the contrary they are rather common. Thus, this is the most evident weakness of the theory which assumes that mass media play the primary role.
The other weakness is that this theory ignores the effect the public has on itself. When people are in a social event, they are bound to talk (positively and negatively) on the agendas advocated by the politicians.
It has been found that, an opinion from a friend, or from someone of the same social class, goes a long way in affecting the opinion of the subject (Crespi 1997, 58). Some politicians and companies have realized this effect and have started the door to door campaigns in an effort to influence the public’s opinion (Crespi 1997, 60).
Another weakness is that people are more sentimental to people and products that hail from their hometown. People are usually less influenced by the media regarding a politician hailing from their area. For example, it was seen that the media would have done little to persuade the people from Illinois to vote for another candidate other than Obama.
People are more likely to vote for a person whom they have ever met, know their relatives or live in their neighborhood. This has been attributed to the pride or a sense of belonging which people hold regarding a product or a person who hails from their area (Crespi 1997, 58).
In conclusion, it is possible to point out that the agenda-setting theory is very important in terms of the study of mass media impact on public opinion. The major strength of the theory is that, there have been studies done and proven it correct. Also, the availability of the media to almost anyone strengthens the theory. In addition, the presence of undecided voters who vote simply because of appearance favor this theory very much.
However, the major weakness of the theory is that it regards mass media as primary source of public agenda shaping. Also, the theory ignores the effect friends and relatives have on each other. In addition, the theory ignores the effect of the pride which people have regarding politicians who hail from their area. However, more studies should be done regarding this theory especially on the psychology field.
It is apparent that people attach an emotional feeling towards the people they vote for or the products they buy. Politician nowadays have become more of actors in their campaign adverts. Also, the incorporation of music and camera effects on campaign adverts has been known to emotionally affect the public’s view on certain politicians. This is all done to try to make an emotional connection with the public.
Bibliography
Crespi, Irving. The Public Opinion Process: How the People Speak. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1997.
McCombs, Maxwell and Salma I. Ghanem. “The Convergence of Agenda Setting and Framing.” In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, edited by Oscar H. Gandy, August E. Grant, Stephen D. Reese, 67-83. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2003.
McCombs, Maxwell E. and Donald L. Shaw “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1972): 176-187.