Agenda

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 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) â€Å"deserves† less attention. Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Agenda-Setting Theory in Public Policy specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More 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 claim that people â€Å"learn not only about a given issue, but also how much impor tance to attach to that issue from the amount of information†, in this way media are setting the â€Å"agenda† (1972, 176). Admittedly, this basic assumption of their theory is plausible since mass media do â€Å"sorts† news and adhere different levels of importance to each event and person. Thus, many people follow the set â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"others†. However, apart from the strengths the agenda-setting theory has quite a significant weakness. Crespi states that the theory â€Å"does not accept the discredited image of all-powerful mass media†, but â€Å"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. Advertising Looking for essay on communications media? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More McCombs and Ghanem claim that the plausibility of the agenda-setting theory is supported by the fact that voters do not have â€Å"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. 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 study is that it reveals certain processes which define the impact of mass media. However, the major weakness of the theory is that it regards mass media as primary source of public agenda shaping. Biblio graphy Crespi, Irving. The Public Opinion Process: How the People Speak. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1997. McCombs, Maxwell and Salma I. Ghanem. â€Å"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 â€Å"The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.† Public Opinion Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1972): 176-187.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Agenda-Setting Theory in Public Policy specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More This essay on Agenda-Setting Theory in Public Policy was written and submitted by user Legend Bowen to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here. Agenda Table of Contents Introduction Impact of the media on the public policy process Positive Effects of Agenda Setting Theory Negative Effects of Agenda Setting Theory Conclusion Bibliography Footnotes Introduction Mass-media has a lot of influence on the audience in terms of the daily information for discussion. People talk about topics in the newspapers or in the radios. This is the basis for the agenda setting theory, brought forward by 1972 by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw1. The mass-media determines the information that is prioritized by the public, therefore directing their interests towards a particular media.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Agenda-Setting Theory specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The audience depends on the keenness given to various thoughts, concerns or matters by the media that make the topic more or less important. The media makes use of this aspect to raise the awareness of the public on relevant matters. This theory helps to explain what is regarded as vital by the people, as well as determines the key issues as seen by the public, based on the media that they are exposed to2. The role of the media is to report and the people then form their opinions based on the information provided. The agenda setting theory is both advantageous and disadvantageous. The merit is that it provides people with information, while the demerit is that this information is biased. The bias is because the media chooses for the people what is more vital, based on the prominence of the reports. The agenda setting function was observed to have a variety of components including: media agenda, which are the means of relaying information such as newspapers and the television; public agenda, which are issues considered by the public to be important and therefore raising discussions; policy agenda, which are the matters that are regarded as vital by policy makers such as the legislators; and corporate agenda, which are the matters regarded as vital by big businesses. The agenda setting effect is observed to be predictable, based on the characteristics of the media, the problems and the people3. Impact of the media on the public policy process The first step in influencing an audience is getting their attention on a particular issue. The media does this by increasing the prominence of a particular topic on their reports. The media also affects the understanding of the issues presented, and creates a viewpoint in the audience, which contributes to the public opinion. Every issue is observed to have many objects, which in turn have attributes. The emphasis of the media on various attributes is what determines the public perception and attention on a particular issue.Advertising Looking for essay on communications media? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More In the analysis conducted by McComb and Shaw during the 1968 pres idential campaign, they observed the various issues raised by various media, and studied the responses provided by the candidates with regard to those issues4. The forms of media used in the study included the television and print media. The attention given by the media via the television was based on the time spent on reporting the issue, as well as the position of the story, in terms of leading. The priority of issues in the newspapers and magazines were based on the space allocated, as well as the position of the story. The issues raised in the media were observed to be key campaign topics for the various candidates, which led the public to judge the candidates based on their responses to those issues. This was an indicator of the influence of the media on the decisions made by the audience. This gave the media a lot of power in terms of how they portrayed the candidates, based on how they tackled these issues, which were now the focus of the nation. This was observed to be the e pitome of political power, since politicians can observe trends in the media and the public, then frame their opinions in a manner to satisfy the people’s expectations5. The media agenda has been identified to influence the public agenda though it does not determine it. The influence of the media does not overpower the ability of the public to make rational decisions on the main issues regarding their communities or nation. The people are observed to be capable of determining the importance of an issue that has been presented by the media, irrespective of whether it is recurrent. If the public identifies the news stories in the media to be important, then the media can be said to have set the agenda. An example of the rationality behind people’s opinions despite media efforts to sway their views was observed in the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. The media failed in its efforts to relate the scandal to the accomplishments or disappointments in governance of President Clinton while in office6.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Agenda-Setting Theory specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The essence of agenda-setting was identified to be a psychological need by people to understand the scenario of a new situation. The media-agenda is seen to influence especially in situations where the public has little information on the particular issue. Politically, this is seen when there are new candidates or referendum issues that people are not adequately informed in. The media provides orientation to the public on new and unfamiliar issues. The degree of the need for orientation depends on the relevance of the matter and the level of uncertainty7. Positive Effects of Agenda Setting Theory One of the benefits of the media is that it provides people with information of the occurrences both locally and internationally. This information is what determines the discussions held among friends, since it invo lves situations of people we love and helps to determine the well-being of our liberty. The research conducted by McComb and Shaw was beyond the investigation of whether the media determined the issues discussed by the community. Maxwell determined that the topics that people discussed were chosen by the media, which was indicated by the continued discussion of a particular issue that remained on the front page for a long time. In addition to this discovery8, McComb sought to find out whether the thoughts of the people were controlled by the media, in terms of what people thought about, and how they thought about it. People were observed to follow the content provided by the media in everyday discussions. The agenda-setting theory helps to explain why the public collectively prioritizes similar topics. It also identifies that people exposed to the same media hold similar positions of the key issues, while exposure to varying media creates varying key issues. Consumer research is a f ield that has benefited from agenda setting, in that organizations can be able to tailor their messages so that they can pull the crowd, based on what is considered to be of importance to the public. The public is dependent on mass-media to receive the most important information, which is relayed in a manner that is easy to understand9.Advertising Looking for essay on communications media? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Negative Effects of Agenda Setting Theory The media sets the agenda for discussion based on the information provided with bias. An example of a story that was publicized for a long time was the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. By virtue of it being on the newspaper front page for several days, the matter was a hot discussion topic. The media stations were also in competition for providing any new information relating to the scandal first, and so they posted updates on websites. The media stations shared every bit of information with the people, which is one of the negative impacts of the media on society. The provision of excess information by the media becomes harmful to the public, and especially the involved parties10. The people who are constantly talked about and judged by the public due to continued display of their issues by the media find it difficult to overcome their problems, with everyone watching. Another incidence of the negative impact of the agenda setting theory is in the televising of the capture of children by Iraqi soldiers. The release of this kind of information to the concerned family members via the media is not the right approach. The information provided by the media is also likely to be politically influenced due to the correlation between media owners and the politicians11. Since politicians are in some cases sponsored by media owners, they may choose to direct their political advertisements through particular media, therefore influencing the material that is made available to the public. Agenda setting is also disadvantageous in that it may neglect some key issues, leaving the public uninformed on some important matters. At the same time, the media creates a sense of biasness among the people, due to selective availing of information that makes them appear favorable to the public. This implies that the public may not be thoughtful or keenly involved in public matters, due to the lack of detailed information12. Conclusion Every single day, there is an issue for discussion among members of the public. This topic is on most cases determined by the media. Despite the disadvantages of having particular topics with higher priority than others, the media plays a big role in providing the information, which we can then process and come up with an opinion for ourselves. The opinions that people form from the stories in the media can then be expressed using various channels, without interference from the government, due to freedom of speech. According to the studies conducted by McComb and Shaw, high salience of affect prevented the media from obtaining more information regarding matters of high individual significance. It was recommended that investigations on communication behaviour and political agenda-setting include other variables. The consideration of psychological and sociological variables was identified to be of importance in the study of political consensus. Bibliography McCombs, Maxwell, and Donald Shaw. â€Å"Th e agenda-setting function of mass media.† Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972: 36, 176-187. McCombs, Maxwell, Esteban Lopez-Escobar, and Juan Pablo Llamas. â€Å"Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election.† Journal of Communication, 2000: 50(2), 77-92. Rossler, Patrick, and Michael Schenk. â€Å"Cognitive bonding and the German reunification: Agenda-setting and persuasion effects of mass media.† International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2000: 12(1), 29-47. Footnotes 1 Shaw and McCombs were studying the role of the media in the presidential campaign in 1968. The study was conducted in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2 Maxwell McCombs, Lopez-Escobar Esteban, and Juan Pablo Llamas. â€Å"Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election.† Journal of Communication, 2000: 50(2), 77-92. 3Patrick Rossler, and Schenk Michael. â€Å"Cognitive bonding and the German reunification: Agenda-setting and persuasion effects of mass media.† International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2000: 12(1), 29-47. 4Maxwell McCombs, and Donald Shaw. â€Å"The agenda-setting function of mass media.† Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972: 36, 176-187 5 Maxwell McCombs, and Donald Shaw, 182 6 Maxwell McCombs, Lopez-Escobar Esteban, and Juan Pablo Llamas, 87 7 Patrick Rossler, and Schenk Michael, 31 8 Maxwell McCombs, and Donald Shaw, 186 9 Maxwell McCombs, Lopez-Escobar Esteban, and Juan Pablo Llamas, 89 10 Maxwell McCombs, and Donald Shaw, 186 11 Patrick Rossler, and Schenk Michael, 32 12 Patrick Rossler, and Schenk Michael, 33 This essay on Agenda-Setting Theory was written and submitted by user Callum Dejesus to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here. Agenda

Critical Thinking Essay Sample

Critical Thinking Essay Sample Critical Thinking Essay Sample What it means to be human in ancient Israel: Israelites are a group of people in the Middle East who believe that they are all descendants of Jacob. The Israelites are perhaps the only people with a well recorded history dating back to 6000BC; their history is well written in religious books such as the Quran and the bible. In the olden days being an Israelite was a hard thing as you had to live according to the standards set by the leaders and the God that was never seen, most people suffered as there was no democracy. The Israelites were ruled by kings who had super special powers and no one was authorized to question their judgment. To them, the kings were a level lower than God and therefore deserved to be respected. The people of Israel were monotheists, meaning they worshiped only one God but sometimes they ended up worshiping the gods and goddesses of the surrounding people. According to their religious beliefs, it was clearly stated that one should worship only God despite that some went against the rule. However, there were serious consequences attributed to that. For instance, anyone found worshiping another god was stoned to death outside the city and in the case where the whole group was found to worship other gods it resulted in mass punishments that would sometimes lead to death. The Israelite community constituted of twelve tribes. Among these tribes was the Leviticus where the entire priests were chosen from. The Levites only become priest and they were not required to do any duties other than their temple work. Furthermore, they had no land and therefore depended on the other tribes for food who had to give out one tenth of their produce to the Levites. This can be seen as some form of exploitation of the people of Israel as others had to work and use their hard work to feed the people who had been chosen by god. Despite this, they highly believed that it was the right thing to do before God. In Israel, most people were farmers and lived in small villages while a small number lived in towns. However, the towns were much smaller and underdeveloped than the modern day towns. Markets were always held in the gateways of the towns. The life of most Israelites however revolved around worshiping and most of the time they were either doing service to god or praying to god for forgiveness. The Israelites had rules that were supposed to guide them throughout their life; these rules were known as the commandments. These had to be followed strictly failure to which they would be punished severely. Moses one of the early Israelites, was given these rules by god while on top of Mount Sinai, alone meaning no one was there to witness him being given the rules. This means that the people had to live and abide by the rules that they did not have a chance to even vote for and make a decision yet no one was supposed to go against them failure to which lead to death. This can be seen as some form of dictatorship as only one person was to be heard and if anyone went against him it automatically led to death. Death penalties were common in Israel (the bible, exodus) and many crimes resulted in death, especially crimes that were related to religion. This is ironical as the same person (God) who created the people could be so mercy less and set rules that took away the life that he made. This can be seen as rules that were set by selfish leaders so as to make the people not to question their performances and believe that they had been chosen by god and so everything they did was right. Leadership was highly respected in ancient Israel and no one was supposed to go against the leaders and anyone found to go against the leaders was persecuted by stoning. Yet these leaders were not chosen or elected by the people the leaders were chosen by God and they had to be from some families. Sex before marriage was an abomination and any person found having sex without getting married would be killed. To some point this rule was good but the punishment was too harsh for the crime, homosexuality would also lead to a death penalty this was wrong because it led to death yet life was supposed to be respected. The common man had no excuse for sinning and if he was found to have sinned it would result in heavy punishment. On the other hand leaders could sin and get away with it take an example of David who killed a man for his wife but because he was loved by God he was forgiven, if he had been a common man then he would have been killed without questioning(Harmer 89). Gender inequality was common and women were looked down upon, they held no positions in the political posts and had to do whatever the men said the woman had to respect the man and had to get married and have children a woman who had no children was considered cursed even if the husband was the cause of the problem. Prostitution was not allowed and any woman found was killed yet the man was not killed. This is very unfair to women as all of them had sinned and not the woman alone so why kill the woman alone and not all of them. War was common in ancient Israel and the local people did not decide when to go to war. This was a decision that was made by the leaders as they were the once to decide when to go to war and when not to go to war. Soldier’s war picked from every family who had to give a son to defend the people, even though this is not wrong it is still wrong considering the fact that during war people would die. However the soldiers had to go to war and incase of death there was no compensations that was made to the family. In conclusion it is evident that the people of Israel suffered a lot and this was mainly because of their leaders who were believed to be God chosen yet they were just ordinary people. Life was unfair for the common man and they had to live in fear of death as most simple crimes would lead to death by stoning, and no one was allowed to question those in authority as they were believed to be chosen by God. If you are looking for professional essay writing services to get your critical thinking essay written by certified academic writers contact www.!