When I was younger (and by younger I mean until right before I went away to college) I would wait for my dad to come home every night and then as we were eating dinner it would be just time for the evening news to start. Sometimes we would watch Brian Williams and sometimes we would watch Katie Couric but it would always start out with previews as to what would be on the show for that day.
I didn’t know it then but that was an example of agenda setting. A lot of how the evening news works fits in with the criteria of agenda setting as shown on page 281 of the Baran and Davies reader. In the evening news, stories with most importance or what the media assumes people will be the most interested in are positioned first in the newscast. The first item this newscast talks about is the Enron scandal. It clearly has a negative spin on it. An uninformed citizen who did not know much about the Enron scandal could for sure tell from just the tone of how they were talking about the scandal that this was very negative. The language they use is very vivid (talking about how Enron had fallen from being one of the top companies on the stock ticker) and it is placed in an important spot (the lead story).
Page 159 of the McCombs and Shaw article posted on blackboard talks about how many of the news stories are the same across various media outlets possibly due to various newswire services. The Evening News and other news outlets putting certain stories first across the board could be considered agenda setting.
I believe that is probably very had to accuse a media outlet of having any kind of specific agenda. Yes, many newscast and newspapers may have a very similar story as their lead-in piece or as the front page story but really, that is because it’s what the public cares about. The YouTube clip from the previews for the evening news ends with a preview for a human-interest story and the back end of a newscast is where that belongs. It doesn’t really have the same sense of national urgency that the other stories do and is really good filler for when people mentally starting to tune of the news. I find it hard to believe that something can be considered agenda setting when really they are just putting what the public wants to hear at the forefront.
Whether the tone of a news piece could be considered agenda setting is an entirely different story. I think in some cases it can be. In MSS232 we watched the FOX News documentary, Outfoxed, and there are a lot cases where that channel does things like refuse to hear a democratic point of view. However, when something fairly one-sided like the CBS Evening news reports on the something as scandalous as Enron its hard not to show it in a negative light because it is indeed negative. It’s not like you can portray Enron is a positive light. It’s probably even hard to portray a scandal like that in an unbiased light.
If a media outlet has a slight agenda when setting their news I do not think its for a political agenda but rather probably more for ratings/sales. If I was at a newsstand and saw two news papers, one with a really emotive headline about something I was interested and one with a very factual headline for something I was interested in I would probably pick the emotive headline because it was interesting to me. When I am reading/watching the news I don’t want to read/watch an encyclopedia article, I want to read/watch something that is going to make me asking questions or even challenge the article if I do not believe in what it is saying.
I think Agenda Setting is a very hard thing to prove in most news cases. Media outlets would be foolish not to play in to our emotions and I believe that it what most news outlets do. Do you think News sources really drive to push their own agenda and try to promote feelings that we are supposed to feel?
I agree with Brian that most news outlets do not set out to have an agenda, and rather the way they position their news stories is due to ratings. I believe that news sources put out what the public wants to see. As humans we are drawn to be interested in disaster. For instance, how many times have you been stuck in traffic on the highway, and find out that the cause of the traffic was a small accident in the breakdown lane? Yet what was really causing the traffic was cars slowing down to rubberneck and see what was going on.
ReplyDeleteIt is also basic journalism that the most important fact be placed first; it's what draws the readers, or viewers in. While some media outlets may put their own spin on a story, “…in democratic societies, where the media may speak out against authority of where journalistic norms require balance, something close to truth is often to be seen and heard, or at least inferred” (McQuail Reader p.381). There is no doubt that a station such as FOX news is conservative, so of course their coverage of stories may be more right wing, but the basic facts and information is most likely the truth.
In the Baran and Davis readings, it outlines four ways of news production. One of the ways is dramatized news. A quote from a policy memorandum written by a network television news producer: “Every news story should, without any sacrifice of probity or responsibility, display the attributes of fiction, of drama. It should have structure and conflict, problem and denouement, rising action and falling action, a beginning, a middle and an end…” (Baran and Davis, 289). While news should not be fiction, it needs to be displayed in a way in which the audience will be interested in watching the program. It is sad to say that the credibleness of news coverage is being sacrificed for the race to have the top ratings, but it is the reality.
Brian proved his point, as an average consumer of news; he would rather pick up the newspaper with the more emotional headline, because it is more appealing. I think that the agenda-setting of news stations is not to instill a particular political ideology, as Brian said, but rather to gain the highest amount of viewership.
It is hard to report on crisis. If we lived in an ideal world, the press wouldn’t have to focus on crime and corruption; however the world is far from perfect and crisis is what draws the reader or viewer in. So, in the world of “agenda-setting,” media outlets report on specific stories and incidents, yet may place specific emphasis or more detail on one particular side. I also agree with Robin and Brian when they state that the way the media positions the news is partly due to what the viewers want to watch. It makes perfect sense to put the more “exciting” or “interesting” stories on the front page or in the beginning of a broadcast, in order to gain more viewers and hold the viewer’s interest. I do believe that the media does put particular ideas in the minds of its viewers, and spends more time on particular stories.
ReplyDeleteBaran and Davis cite an article by McCombs and Shaw which states, “Readers learn not only about a given issue, but how much importance to attach that issue from the amount of information in a news story an its position,” (Baran and Davis 279). Once again, it is extremely difficult to report on different stories, with the same amount of time and emphasis. It is very likely that the media will spend more time on stories in which the network agrees with or feels as if will attract more viewers. I am a victim of the media and I often watch the news for it’s “Top Stories,” since those are the ones I feel are most important, just as the media outlet feels the same way.
I find the whole idea of “the spiral of silence,” extremely interesting. Do people who believe they think differently of others hold their opinions and viewpoints to themselves? I certainly agree that some people do, in fear of being ostracized, but there are others who don’t. Katz writes, “Most people, however, continue to think as they thought, deferring to the majority either out of self-doubt or self-protection,” (McQuail 381). This is interesting since some people follow the ideas of mass society, whereas others continue to hold their own opinions and values. I’d like to think that as a member of the mass society, I don’t conform and I have not be influenced by what I read in magazines or see on television, but that would be a lie. Although I still hold some of my own opinions, I have been influenced by society, and although I don’t think I have been “silenced,” I do think agenda setting plays an important role in media today.
Unfortunately, I feel that the world we live in is a world in which the most newsworthy things that happen are mostly negative. If a person does a good deed, it shouldn't be the lead story in a newscast because those should be things that happen 24 hours a day. Instead things like the Enron scandal or the ever growing unemployment rate are the stories that will dominate our newswaves.
ReplyDeleteNow whether the news intentionally puts a negative spin is an entirely different issue. I feel like most of what viewers view as a negative spin is themselves remembering the things that stick out. Baran and Davis (281) say that "even the most motivated citizens cannot consider all that they know when evaluating complex political issues. Instead people consider the things that easily come to mind." So what people find as negative may just be the most shocking thing that sticks out when a person watches television.
The news also is looking to attract viewers and to get people talking. Most of that involves the latest issues which are going on. Rogers and Dearing (83) say that "an issue arises when a public with a problem seeks or demands governmental action, and there is public disagreement over the best solution to the problem." These issues are generally the ones that lead news broadcasts. It then becomes rather a which came first the chicken or the egg type of thing. Does it become an issue because the news reported it and made it important, or would it have been a big issue regardless of whether or not it was on the news. I think the news is what makes these issues happens, because rarely do you talk about things that aren't on the news or at least covered by the news.
What interested me most about Brian's response was the objective and newsworthy nature of the content selected. An attempt to examine raw Agenda-Setting theory is a bit tougher with sensational stories such as Lady Gaga and 'Frankenfood'.
ReplyDeleteNow, Brian brings up the valid point that it is very difficult (and perhaps impractical) to prove that specific outlets have specific agendas they set out to impliment. However, I think there is a flip view to the Agenda-Setting theory as a whole that is missing here. In the Rogers and Dearing reading, it is stated that early theorist William James had a belief that the public uses media to "form an 'acquaintence' with information by studying the role of newspapers in forming public opinion" (Rogers & Dearing, 81). While media outlets have expanded far beyond newspapers, I believe this base sentiment to still hold a truthful value in current day society. Brian examines Agenda-Setting to be the idea of the media setting out to shape a certain opinion. While this may be true in some cases (coughfoxnewscough), I think the theory as a whole provides more power to the people than we think. News outlets will place things first that they believe hold the most public interest, or are highest in the public interest agenda. If it is not, in fact, somethign the public is interested in, they will find alternative means of attaining relevent news. Thus ratings have the possibility of dropping and content is bound to change accordingly. It is in this respect that the agenda of media outlets can be seen as set by public opinion. Much as William James theorized, the people interpret this media as a valid source or propoganda. If the people judge the media to be nothing but an arm of an agenda, they have the right to find alternate means.
Now, while that explaination would hold true in a utopian America where everyone cared about their surrounding issues, it may not hold as true in contemporary society. In the McCombs and Shaw reading, the study conducted observed the mass effects of such an agenda-setting theory in media on a population of voters. It was stated however that this initial test was adequate but to truly se the effects of agenda setting, the tests must move "from a broad societal level to the social psychological level, matching individual attitudes with individual uses of mass media" (McCombs & Shaw, 160). While my previously cited excerpt from William James theory may hodl true for an alert public's interpretation of media roles, this post-experimental notion may holdm ore true today. It seems that in todays day and age most people will believe anything they are told. If such a study was conducted on an individual level, I think the results would be disturbing. The five-o'clock news has become both background noise and the primary source of news to the American citizen. If a sketchy detail is brought up on the news, your average household will rarely run to the family computer and research alternate views. Ultimately, I propose our individual laziness has given the media their Agenda-Setting power. In the times of William James, we had the power to control the media. However, we have been collectively out of the know for so long that the same power may be harder to reclaim.
Call me a cynic but no matter what agenda the media may push, the dominant party in America will remain the Apathetic.
I feel that McCombs and Shaw said it best when they stated that “most of what people know comes to them ‘second’ or ‘third’ hand from the mass media or from other people” (p. 159). In this modern time it is really incredible if you sit back and consider the power of the national media and the effect it has on the population. The article also talks about the ways in which voters learn about the various promises and other rhetoric from political candidates in a given election. Basically this is done through news stories, editorials, and news/political programming where people watch and read about the latest happenings in the race.
ReplyDeleteReading about agenda-setting in Baran and Davis and then viewing the CBS News clip was very interesting to me but definitely helped me understand the theory better. I agree with Brian that I had never previously considered any type of agenda setting when I would watch the nightly news or any newscast for that matter. Baran and Davis cite the 2008 presidential election and how certain stories such as questions about Barack Obama’s “blackness”, his middle name, and John McCain’s age were viewed by Americans as the most important of the campaign race (p. 278-279). Obviously this was due to agenda setting as these were the stories that were written about and discussed on television and radio on an almost daily basis.
Not only were these same stories continually talked about in the media but they were placed very prominently in the newscast or in the newspaper. I agree with everyone else with the idea that these were the stories that made up that day’s “top stories” because of their popularity and attractiveness to vast portions of the population. Many people such as myself, on a fairly regular basis, will tune into a TV show such as Anderson Cooper 360 and simply watch the first ten minutes or so to learn about that night’s top stories. But when you think about it these are the very same stories that millions of other Americans were also hearing and reading about over the course of the day. Whether displayed on the main headlines of a website such as Yahoo or MSN, front page of a newspaper, or the first couple minutes of a news program, the same stories are being prominently located throughout all forms of media. In this way I can understand the power of agenda setting and how many of these media outlets and organizations really do frame the news and types of news that the public consumes on a daily basis.
According to the Baran and Denis text agenda-setting is defined to be the idea that the media does not tell people what to think but shows you what to think about. As media consumers we have the choice to go to different news sources to get our information. Ideas that were presented in the Baran/Dennis and the Mc Quail readings pointed out theories and insight on how some people might consume media in a certain way based on a variety of factors that different stations practice.
ReplyDeleteAgenda setting can be formulated by the use of framing, editing of the news content to fit a certain view, and the positioning of the story in the programs line up. The statement, that Walter Lippmann said in the Baran and Dennis text “that people do not deal directly with their environments as much as they do with the pictures in their head” leads to the fact that the traditional method of sharing of ideas are diminishing and the influences of media sources are becoming more prominent. We live in a media rich world; this is what is expected to happen. Though I would not say that this influence does not occur. We are influenced by these stations newscasts and they follow a specific format it may not be meant as a target but they do formulate your mind to think a certain way. This could lead us to change our views or opinions on a certain issue, this could be formally called as the silence theory. In the McQuail text, Noelle states that “The more the media speaks in one voice, and the more people are disconnected from each other from intermediate organizations (church, trade union, political party voluntary organizations, ect) and from their past, the absolute rule of the media and their masters.” I go to the news to get official facts but some of the practices news stations use could make an aware viewer become more questionable.
Newscasts and other forms of media have the power to change our minds on an issue because we turn to them as a reliable resource we conform to them because they are an official source rather than listening to your ranting neighbor. I believe the structure of agenda setting and the silence theory is still present in today’s media rich world and the influences are real whether we take them into account or not.