Running head: AGENDA SETTING AND THE PUBLIC RELATIONS INDUSTRY
An Examination of Agenda Setting Theory and Its Importance in the Public Relations Industry
Jamie Baird
Pennsylvania State University
Abstract
This paper assesses how the media influences what issues are most prevalent on the public agenda through the examination of the agenda setting theory. The history and development of agenda setting are discussed, as well as why this theory is important in the public relations industry today.
An Examination of Agenda Setting Theory and Its Importance in the Public Relations Industry
Introduction
When attempting to gage issues of public interest, it is best to first examine the issues that are repeatedly covered in the mass media. The media effectively decides which issues will be on the agenda, and then brings them to attention of the public through recurring news coverage. This concept is formally known as the agenda setting theory; a term first coined by professors Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in 1972. Agenda setting continues to evolve into a key theory in the communications field today. In order to be a successful public relations professional, it is crucial to understand and incorporate this theory. This paper aims to examine the development and details of the agenda setting theory in order to validate its importance to public relations professionals.
Theory Description
Although it is McCombs and Shaw who are credited with first formally introducing the agenda setting theory, they were not the first to notice that the media influences public interest. When discussing why the United States entered World War I, Walter Lippman first theorized that the media influences how the world is viewed. He never used the term agenda setting, but he was the first to notice that public opinion responds to the world constructed by the news media (Griffin, 2003). Then, in 1963, Bernard Cohen observed that “the press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p. 177). These observations by Lippman and Cohen went against the general consensus in the communication research field. The prevailing view was that people tended to pay attention only to things that didn’t threaten their personal beliefs (Griffin, 2003). Regardless of what was getting news coverage, it was thought that the public only showed interest in things that aligned with their established views. Finally, in 1968 McCombs and Shaw sought to empirically test the ideas that were first hypothesized by Lippman and Cohen using an election campaign. The 1968 presidential election is a great example of a campaign using agenda setting.
Their experiment is known as the Chapel Hill study, conducted during the election cycle of 1968. The goal of the study was to match what Chapel Hill voters believed were key issues of the campaign with the main content covered by the mass media they watched/read during the campaign. McCombs and Shaw narrowed the content down to the five most publicized campaign issues out of the nine main print and broadcast media that served the Chapel Hill area (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). The researchers were hoping to find what voters ranked most important and what the media reported the most would align. Their hypothesis was proven correct, confirming the strong correlation between what was reported and what voters found to be important (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
Even though this study empirically introduced the relationship between media and public agenda, it alone was not able to confirm causation over correlation. McCombs and three others researched further during the 1976 presidential campaign, and found that there was a six-week lag between when the media first promoted an issue and when the public began to take notice of that issue (Griffin, 2003). This helped to confirm that the media created the public agenda, over the possibility that the media reported on what the public first found to be important. Since the original Chapel Hill study, there have been over 425 empirical studies to further test agenda setting theory, and confirm the causal relationship between the media and public.
This causal relationship between the media and the public agenda is defined in terms of salience. Agenda setting is the transfer of salience from the media to the public, meaning the media influences how important the public finds an issue (Yioutas & Segvic, 2003). The media gives repeated attention to an issue, causing an increase in the public salience of that issue. This transference is known as the first-level of agenda setting. However, a second-level of agenda setting also formed as the theory further developed. There is not only a transfer of issue salience, but also a transfer of issue characteristic salience (Denham, 2010). The media promotes certain aspects of the issues more than others, making them more important to the public.
For example, when the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, the media was so preoccupied with issue that it took over a year for the New York Times to publish an issue without Lewinsky’s named being mentioned in any articles (Yioutas & Segvic, 2003). This naturally led to the entire country being wrapped up in the scandal, a prime example of first-level agenda setting. As the continuous coverage unfolded, ABC News and the Washington Post conducted a survey, in which for “87% of those surveyed, encouraging morality and values would factor in their voting decision for president” (Yioutas & Segvic, 2003, p. 568). With the way the news unfolded, the morality of the president became an attribute of the scandal that concerned the public the most, an example of second-level agenda setting.
Not only are there two levels of agenda setting, but also three different types. Rogers and Dearing named these in a 1988 review of agenda setting research as policy agenda setting, media agenda setting and public agenda setting (Denham, 2010). Policy agenda setting considers how the news media has the ability to influence legislative policy. Cobb and Elder observed in 1972 that to get a policy on the agenda, the issue is first created by some sort of triggering event and then further expanded to garner public support (Denham, 2008). They also discussed the legislative issues that have the best chance of succeeding are those that are “socially significant, non-complex, and void of clear precedence” (Denham, 2010, p. 311). These types of issues can be picked up by the media, and therefore be given enough attention to get on the public agenda. Once the issue has a presence on the public agenda, it is easier to continue to garner public interest and support, and therefore help to create and influence policy making.
The second type of agenda setting is known as media agenda setting. This type of agenda setting begs the question, who decides the agenda for the agenda-setters? The people who decide which issues get placed in news publications and broadcast are called gatekeepers. Gatekeepers are media professionals such as editors, journalists and operating chiefs from top national publications (Griffin, 2003). There are many different elements that influence how gatekeepers decide what to put on the media agenda. First, there are extra-media influences such as press releases and conferences, which provide the gatekeepers with information to put on the agenda (Denham, 2010). Gatekeepers value these influences because they provide them with sources of public interest. They also allow gatekeepers to efficiently produce news, as they provide a great amount of information on the issue. Other influences on content include individual characteristics of journalists and cultural considerations. Characteristics of the journalists, such as race, gender and political affiliation influence the type of stories they write, as well as the angle in which they write them. Also, the country and culture they are writing from affects the manner and way they write. For example, journalists in the United States tend to write from the standpoint of American values and behavior standards (Denham, 2010).
The final type of agenda setting is known as public agenda setting. This type deals with the public’s behavioral responses to mass communication. It measures how the public actually reacts to the issue once it has been put on the agenda. For interest groups that are trying to enact change, it is important to not only get on the agenda, but also get a reaction from the public once it is on the agenda. Denham (2010) writes that groups build public agenda most successfully by taking advantage of personal relevance and social significance. When the public believes an issue is more likely to affect them, they are more likely to get involved and informed on the issue. The news media creates public agenda by spreading information. There are also special interest groups and movements that can create agendas by viral marketing strategies, email, door-to-door canvassing and distributing information in public settings (Denham, 2010). To get on the public agenda, these groups must also provide the public with opportunities to act on an issue. How successful they are at getting the public to act on the issue depends on how prevalent they are on the agenda. The following graph helps to illustrate how agenda setting works (Albalawi & Sixsmith, 2015).
Application in Public Relations
Public relations professionals have the ability to influence public interest on behalf of their clients by utilizing the concepts of agenda setting. Journalists rely on public relations professionals as providers of information when building the media agenda. Sallot and Johnson (2006) conducted an experiment in which the journalists who were interviewed estimated that 44% of the news media in the United States was influenced by public relations practitioners. Every time a public relations professional sends out a press release or hosts a press conference for their client, they are providing news publications with valuable information to put on the agenda. As Griffin (2003) states, “Even prestigious newspapers with large investigative staffs such as the Washington Post and New York Times get over half of what they print straight from press releases and press conferences” (p. 395).
Public relations practitioners must also understand the role of gatekeepers in agenda setting. Since gatekeepers decide what the media puts on the agenda, it is beneficial for public relations professionals to have good business relationships with a variety of editors and journalists. This sentiment was echoed in the survey done by Sallot and Johnson. The journalists they interviewed agreed that it was important to have good relationships with public relations practitioners for information purposes (Sallot & Johnson, 2006). These relationships will increase public relations professionals’ chances of getting their clients on the news agenda.
Furthermore, it is necessary for public relations professionals to understand not only first level agenda setting, but second level as well. The attributes of their message that are most important should be promoted more, in order to increase salience of these aspects in news coverage. The results of a study by Kiousis, Popescu, and Mitrook (2007) corroborated this statement. The researchers compared public relations materials, media content, public opinion and financial performance to analyze how the distribution of public relations materials affected the salience of different corporations in the news. The study showed that the aspects projected the most by the public relations professionals were also projected the most by news media (Kiousis, Popescu, & Mitrook, 2007).
Conclusion
After examining the research and evidence, it is impossible to deny the impact the media has on deciding the public agenda. They bring salience to issues and aspects of those issues, therefore impacting the matters that are of public interest. This theory of agenda setting is critical for public relations professionals to understand. It is important to consider the way news media can influence public agenda, in order to better serve clients. By incorporating the agenda setting theory into how they go about promoting their clients, public relations professionals will be successful at getting their clients on the agenda.
References
Denham, B. (2010). Toward conceptual consistency in studies of agenda-building processes: A scholarly review. Review of Communication. 10(4), 306-323. doi: 10.1080/15358593.2010.502593
Griffin, E. (2003). Agenda-setting theory of Maxwell McCombs & Donald Shaw. In A first look at communication theory (pp. 390 – 402). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Kiousis, S., Popescu, C., & Mitrook, M. (2007). Understanding influence on corporate reputation: An examination of public relations efforts, media coverage, public opinion, and financial performance from an agenda-building and agenda-setting perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research. 19(2) 147-165. doi: 10.1080/10627260701290661
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly. 36(2), 176-187. doi: 10.1086/267990
Sallot, L. & Johnson, E. (2006) Investigating relationships between journalists and public relations practitioners: Working together to set, frame and build the public agenda, 1991–2004. Public Relations Review. 32(2). 151 -159. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.02.008
Yioutas, J., Segvic, I. (2003). Revisiting the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal: The convergence of agenda setting and framing. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 80(3), 567-582. doi: 10.1177/107769900308000306