An important role which is often ascribed to the media is that of agenda-setter. Georgetown University professor Gary Wasserman describes this as "putting together an agenda of national priorities — what should be taken seriously, what lightly, what not at all". Wasserman calls this "the most important political function the media perform".
Agenda-setting theory was proposed by McCombs and Shaw in the 1970s and suggests that the public agenda is dictated by the media agenda. An article from EBSCO Research discussed the mass media and political agenda-setting theory as it relates to political communication. The theory was first introduced by Donald Shaw and Maxwell McCombs around the 1970s, and initially proposed that mass media influences the public agenda by molding which issues are deemed as important to the American public. Instead of telling people what opinions they should have, media coverage affects which topics gain the most attention and engagement, and that they are considered transparent in public discourse. Agenda-setting spans across many media platforms that include digital outlets, print, and broadcast. It also says that the theory has evolved over the years to include different levels of agenda-setting. The first level focuses more on transparency of the issue, as mentioned previously. The second level of agenda-setting focuses more on the framing or attributes of the issue at hand. Agenda-setting effects are extremely influential in environments where people have a limited experience, this increasing reliance on information that is mediated. As a result, the agenda-setting theory is a key part in the central framework when looking at the relationship between public opinion and mass media. Even though digital media continues to see record-breaking usage, studies show that most Americans still prefer to receive their news from the television. Around 5 decades ago, all Americans were getting their news from network television, thanks to the discovery of cable in the 1980s. Back then, there was only three real stations that people tuned into: ABC, NBC, and CBS. In total, these three channels saw around 80 million consumers. Back when these three channels were the main sources of news for Americans via television, there was much less bias in their reporting. Additionally, 24 hour news had recently came to fruition so Americans had no need to seek their news elsewhere. Television news has gone through many transformations as the years progressed as technology, media economics, and audience behavior have shifted across the country. In today's day in age, many news networks have become extremely polarized; usually tailoring to either Republicans or Democrats. It has become increasingly difficult to find news that remains neutral and accurate at the same time, which then leads to a massive distrust in media outlets and organizations. Terms like "fake news" continue to divide Americans. Today, it is hard to tell whether or not a news source is reliable or not, meaning that Americans usually have to look at several news articles and sift through the lies to determine what is accurate and not. Recent studies have looked into how news media shape the public's understanding of major social policies that make up the United States' "social safety net".
Agenda-setting in domestic politics In a commercialized media context, the media can often not afford to ignore an important issue which another television station, newspaper, or radio station is willing to pick up. The news media may be able to create new issues by reporting or they can obscure issues through negligence and distraction. For example, if neighborhoods are affected by high
crime rates, or
unemployment, journalists may not spend sufficient time reporting on potential solutions, or on systemic causes such as
corruption and
social exclusion, or on other related issues. They can reduce the direct awareness of the public of these problems. In some cases, the public can choose another news source, so it is in a news organization's commercial interest to try to find an agenda which corresponds as closely as possible to peoples' desires. They may not be entirely successful, but the agenda-setting potential of the media is considerably limited by the competition for viewers' interest, readers and listeners. Different US news media sources tend to identify the same major stories in domestic politics, which may imply that the media are prioritizing issues according to a shared set of criteria.
Agenda-setting in foreign policy One way in which the media could set the agenda is if it is in an area in which very few Americans have direct experience of the issues. This applies to
foreign policy. When American military personnel are involved, the media needs to report because the personnel are related to the American public. The media is also likely to have an interest in reporting issues with major direct effects on American workers, such as major trade agreements with Mexico. In other cases, it is difficult to see how the media can be prevented from setting the foreign policy agenda. McKay lists as one of the three main distortions of information by the media "Placing high priority on American news to the detriment of foreign news. And when the US is engaged in military action abroad, this 'foreign news' crowds out other foreign news".
Horse race approach to political campaign coverage American news media are more obsessed than ever with the horse-race aspects of the presidential campaign, according to a 2007 study. Coverage of the political campaigns have been less reflective on the issues that matter to voters, and instead have primarily focused on campaign tactics and strategy, according to a report conducted jointly by the
Project for Excellence in Journalism, part of the
Pew Research Center, and the
Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the
Kennedy School of Harvard University, which examined 1,742 stories that appeared from January through May 2007 in 48 news outlets. Almost two-thirds of all stories in American news media, including print, television, radio and online, focused on the political aspects of the campaign, while only one percent focused on the candidates' public records. Only 12 percent of stories seemed relevant to voters' decision-making; the rest were more about tactics and strategy. The proportion of horse-race stories has gotten worse over time. Horse-race coverage has accounted for 63 percent of reports this year (2007) compared with what the study said was about 55 percent in 2000 and 2004. "If American politics is changing," the study concluded, "the style and approach of the American press do not appear to be changing with it". The study found that the American news media deprive the American public of what Americans say they want: voters are eager to know more about the candidates' positions on issues and their personal backgrounds, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates. The same approach can also apply to issue politics. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the
Annenberg Public Policy Center coined the term "tactical framing" to describe news coverage that focuses on the question of how a policy proposal will affect the next election, rather than whether or not it is a good idea. Jamieson cites coverage of the
Green New Deal as an example. Research by Jameson has found the presence of tactically framed stories can make voters more cynical and less likely to remember substantive information. ==See also==