In my first blog which was my introduction, I quoted that the information we are exposed to both informs and forms us. As we grow older, we form our lives and become stubborn to take information that we want to believe in. Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw introduced the Agenda-Setting Theory in 1972. These men defined the theory with the function:
"The media may not only tell us what to think about, they also may tell us how and what to think about it, and perhaps even what to do about it." (Griffin p 403)
The Agenda-Setting Theory tells us how the media influences not only what the audience wants to hear and read about, but also how to deal with it as well. For example, the use of media to get people out to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Media was used in every way possible to get Americans out to vote, to show the significance of voting, how important it is. And it worked!
The Agenda-Setting Theory has 2 components of media agenda which is the "cause" and public agenda which is the "delayed effect." The media agenda is what the media communicates to the public. In the voting example, it would be the commercials, ads, all of media! And the public agenda is what the public is influenced to do, think, or act upon the media agenda. In the given example, it would be the influence upon viewers that voted.
Also we learn about Framing: The Salience of Attributes. James Tankard defines framing as "the central organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection, emphasis, exlusion, and elaboration." (Griffin p 401) Then that makes it possible that the media pick and choose what to communicate to the audience. In order to do so, they need to know what the audience wants to read and watch about. Whatever sells is aired on TV; sex, power, violence sells! And if this is so, how is it that framing is possible when the media agenda causes public agenda?
Your example of “Celebrity Ad: Vote” is a good example of Agenda-Setting Theory. The video demonstrates interest aggregation which is when “clusters of people demand center stage for their one overriding concern, whatever it might be.” The issue is obviously the importance of voting. Through the agenda-setting theory we would see an increase in viewers interest and what they can do involving voting. Media Agenda could increase the salience of voting by playing the commercial during prime time hours, interviewing the actors in the piece about the importance of voting, and downplaying negative voting issues. How is framing possible when the media agenda causes public agenda? The question is a little confusing because I am still trying to understand agenda-setting theory, but I think framing is possible when the media outlet is trying to convey a certain agenda. In the book, they talk about the final four in Florida. The media knows about the importance and popularity of the game. They frame the stories around the game to what they believe will intrigue the audience the most. Media agenda and public agenda work together.
ReplyDeleteWow! That is the longest ad I have ever seen. where did it play during the election? because I never saw it. It couldn't have been tv, b/c it is way too long. That brings me to my point, part of the specifics of Agenda Setting theory are not just content, but length of content, and this one wins for length of content. Obviously this campaign was to sway voters with celebrity. it would be interesting to know if any kind of surveys were done maybe asking would you vote if celebrity x votes? Some people identify with celebrities to a scary degree. I'd be curious to know too how long this ad ran? where? and to target what demographic. I actually got mad watching this, and this is off the subject , but the implicit message that i don't like is that I need a celebrity to tell me to vote, and guess what I don't.
ReplyDeleteYea I agree with Devin agenda setting is definitely a theory that you have to look over more than a few times to grasp completely. I read the chapter and I still don’t understand some of the stuff. I don’t recall seeing this ad when it was on TV before the election. It shows celebrities can indirectly be a tool of politicians just by endorsing them and setting their agenda straight for the public. Celebrities are sometimes used as tools or pawns to sell a certain person to the public, but I don’t think they mind. They just want to help the causes they believe in. Like saying your vote doesn’t matter it’s like reverse psychology telling them that not voting is good, but not meaning that. It’s trying to reach the people who believe these things and people who are misinformed. If you don’t vote you don’t matter, let your voice be heard, why not let your issues be heard even if it is through another person. It’s a right we have and one I’d never give up I’ve only voted 4 times. I’m looking forward to all the other times I step in that booth and push those buttons.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that celebrities and others voiced their opinion on the election had a huge influence on how people voted. I recall watching the news and upon hearing that certain people would endorse say, Obama,there would often be a jump in the polls. I think that this relates back to egos in that fact that the endorsements are from well known reliable people, although this may apply more to politicians a whole lot more then it would some one such as Tom Cruise.
ReplyDelete