McQuail says in the text that "the term 'agenda setting' was coined by McCombs and Shaw to describe a pheomenon which had long been noticed and studied in the context of election campagns". Agenda setting is basically a theory that the media portrays the important issues of the current day to the public, and therefore the public believes and perceives that those issues are THE most important.
The idea of agenda setting began with studying election campaigns. It has grown beyond belief since then. In the article, "When Oprah Intervenes: Political Correlates of Daytime Talk Show Viewing", the authors discuss a number of things. They first discuss the idea of the cultivation theory, which we have already covered. However, then they take on the idea of the agenda setting theory, and describe how daytime talk shows influence opinion formation in the public. Whether it be from Oprah's "My Favorite Things" show around the holidays, to the roles of talk shows in forming opinions in politics.
This article hypothesizes that exposure to daytime talk shows would influence the public, and that the reality of these shows would lead to a positive correlation in public support for the government's involvements on the social issues presented on these talk shows. The study's hypothesis was correct. In McQuail, part of the chapter focuses on the idea of politics, and how "politicians seek to convince voters that the most important issues are those with which they are most closely identified". I believe that part of politicans agenda setting theory in the media involves these talk shows, because this study proves that they are very powerful mechanisms in engaging the public and encourages the public to become invovled. If I were a politican I don't think I could ask for a better tool in my campaign. Almost all of the candidates for this presidential race have appeared on at least one American talk show, which I think is smart because this article proves that the political correlation from talk shows is pretty good.
I'm asking you to read this article about political correlations in talk shows, posted here: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=9&sid=af69c31c-d668-4126-802c-2dfb3c40bb20%40sessionmgr7
First off, what are your thoughts on the agenda setting theory? Do you think that it is a concrete theory or that there are flaws? Also, how do you feel about the theory connected to politics, do you think that it is a powerful mechanism for politicans to use in their campaigns? Finally, how do you think the candidates for this presidential race are using this agenda setting theory, on talk shows in particular?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I believe that the agenda setting theory is a plausible explanation for what the public believes are the most important issues today. In a world that is so fast-paced, I would venture to say most people feel they don't have enough time to really sit down and thoroughly research issues that are important to them. Their primary source about candidates is what they can get their hands on fastest, like soundbites on TV news or in catching headlines on the Internet or newspapers.
As for the idea that politics has made its way to talk shows, the infamous Oprah Effect comes to mind. In an article from September 2007 from ABC News (click here), the author states that "A plug from Winfrey can turn a book into a best-seller and a movie into a blockbuster. But does the Oprah effect hold true for politics too? Can Winfrey's blessing turn a candidate into a president?" This is in reference to Oprah's very public backing of Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate for president. As Winfrey says to Larry King in the article, "My support of [Obama] is probably worth more than any check that I could write." Woah, way to be self-aware!
Oprah knows her own worth and what a large and varied fanbase she attracts. Any candidate should be looking for ways to reach out to people who watch talk shows. If memory serves me correctly, both Obama and Senator Clinton made stops on The Tyra Banks Show (random, you say? I think not) in order to get the attention of youth voters and those who would not normally be exposed to (or want to become involved in) politics or similar discussions. Who remembers the box of Issue Tissues for Senator Clinton, or the conversation with Senator Obama about his younger days as a basketball player? These strategies are all used as filler to get talk show viewers interested in what the candidates have to say. I can almost imagine young teenagers thinking, "Well, if these people are important enough for Tyra to have on her show, then I guess I should listen to them!" According to Elihu Katz in the McQuail reader (page 383), "Communication is used to transmit information about what relevant others are thinking or doing. It is obvious that when people want to know what others think, communication of such information will have an effect." Both Oprah and Tyra conducted their interviews in such a way that the candidates were "humanized" and the issues were made to sound like they would affect each and every viewer personally.
Daytime talk shows aren't the only ones getting their share of candidates. Late night shows such as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno has Mike Huckabee playing his guitar for all to see, showing him to be a "regular guy".
At this point in time in the election race, I don't know if all the candidates have used the "talk show contingency" to the fullest, though some have tried. It certainly got my attention when I learned that presidential candidates were appearing on Tyra's show. It's a smart move to make, though it also kind of assumes the audience (at least in Oprah's case) doesn't have a mind of their own and will agree with whatever she says. On the other hand, the base of followers she and other talk show hosts have should not be ignored. Maybe once the 2 candidates have been nominated, each will do their agenda-setting rounds more fully.
I think though that in every single kind of media there is an agenda setting. There is a specific reason why types of media are given to us and whoever is making that media available wants you to feel a certain way about what they are giving you. When it comes to politicians I’m not sure if I agree with the agenda setting theory. I think that the media is probably the only way that politicians can get their word, name and platform out to the public so obviously politicians have an agenda for what they want people to think about them. I’m not sure how agenda setting has to do with talk shows however. I mean I get that politicians go on talk shows so that people can understand what they stand for. And I understand that it’s better for the politicians, say people who are obsessed with Oprah, as horrific as it may be, will vote for someone because Oprah endorses them. I don’t think it’s a good thing but I’m sure it happens. And obviously someone like Oprah has an agenda setting because she wants to sway her viewers to vote how she wants them to vote. I think that in this time in our society agenda setting is probably going to start hurting us because people in this country are SO influenced by the media (tweens) that people are going to stop thinking for themselves and start believing the biased information that is given to them on the news. I don’t know how many times I hear “yesterday on Oprah” from my roommates. People are obsessed with her, and now with the boom of Tyra I think that it just gives talk shows more power. One thing that you didn’t touch on that I think is really interesting is the Late Night Talk Shows because shows like Leno, Letterman, Daily Show and Colbert Report influence people so much.
I always find it interesting that presidents find a platform and some people will vote for a president based soley on that platform. For example abortion, people feel so strongly about abortion that they might not even be effected like they could be an 80 year old woman who cant get pregnant but they will vote for the president who takes their side.
I really like the agenda setting theory, probably because it can be applied to so many different aspects of the media. Coming from an internship where I sat in on news meetings where basically producers decide what stories go on the air in what order, I definately agree that the public's views on a specific topic are shaped by the attention the media gives to them. (Like, last semester there were a few burglaries on Staten Island supposedly commited by a "ninja" and people were panicking that this ninja burglar was going to come and rob their house, all because they saw the stories constantly being ran on the station, hysterical.)
A more serious example, is the way the media covers school shootings. A lot of parents are worried about school shootings, they think that there is this epidemic or something because the media constantly airs stories about safety in schools and bulletproof backpacks and metal detectors. Meanwhile, and this isn't to downplay how terrible it is that crimes at school happen, school is still the safest place for a kid to be. So really its all about the way the news frames a story.
As far as politics go, I agree with what Joanna said about talk shows, especially late night ones, having so much power. I completely believe that seeing a politician on a talk show is going to influence a viewer in a profound way. First, because the setting is usually more relaxed than say a debate or speech or something. And secondly, because of the nature of talk shows, the politicians get a good chance to tell the American public their opinions. Oprah has such a huge following, you know that a lot of those people are going to be voting for Obama now (except my grandma who thinks its ridiculous that Oprah isn't endoring Clinton because shes a woman too or some nonsense).
Are their flaws in the cultivation theory? YES. Lauren’s Oprah article claims that the theory should ultimately have a positive correlation between information provided on talk shows and public support for these issues. This belief poses a major flaw. What about those talk shows or show hosts who are absolutely HATED by people. For example, when Rosie was on the View, people despised her. Many people can’t stand Tyra. The list goes on. To proceed with the point, if Rosie beings up a political issue, which she often did, or if Tyra brings up a political issue, do you think Rosie and Tyra haters are going to listen and support her? Probably not. In fact, they may even create an opposite effect in that people may not have an opinion on the issue introduced, but simply because it was introduced by Rosie, they now strongly disagree with her. It seems so catty, but we all know people out there who are like this. Page 455 of McQuail says agenda setting tactics neglect to take into consideration “who is important, where important things happen, and why things are important.” If viewers of daytime television are particularly prejudiced toward shows and hosts, than this theory falls into a major loophole.
The article “Agenda-Setting Function of the Mass Media” similarly suggests that agenda setting is prevalent and effective in today’s media based society. However, in terms of politics, Lauren asks whether or not agenda setting through talk shows is a “powerful mechanism for politicians to use in their campaigns?” Regardless of the flaws mentioned above, I definitely think the theory is a useful tool for political campaigns. For some, exposure on talk shows may further generate support for their choice political leaders. For some, exposure on talk shows may further their education on public issues. For others, exposure on talk shows may simply give moms something to watch while ironing. But for a small few like me, exposure on talk shows may shed a whole new light on a whole new bundle of topics that have never before been pondered by us. I think with the exception of the show haters mentioned above, agenda-setting by means of talk shows creates a win win situation for everyone. Political leaders get points, talk shows get points, and viewers gain valuable information. Let’s just hope the system remains balanced and honest.
I think the agenda setting is a concrete theory that explains how the media is so powerful, and how that power can be misleading. It’s pretty scary that our sources for news (TV radio newspapers magazines, etc) are using agenda setting for various reasons and shaping what is “newsworthy” for our nation, therefore limiting what we know. Like we talked about in class, a lot of what we see on the news is negative, creating a negative image of our society, causing fear in too many moms out there. Also, too much of our news is celebrity news, or focused on other events that might be entertaining and bring in high ratings, but may not be the events that people should be hearing about.
As for the Daily Show, The Soup, and other forms of Entertainment news, I think we watch these programs more for entertainment than for hard news. We expect to learn from them, but not in detail, in ways that will make us laugh. Daytime Talk Shows are good sources of information if they are not your primary source of news. If the only source of news we are getting is from the Daily Show or The Soup, that’s the fault of our own discretion. As for politics, I listen to the candidates’ campaign to find out what issues they feel are important, in comparison to what I feel is important. But I also believe that when people ask them questions outside of what they bring forth on their own, that’s when its most important to listen to how they react and how intelligent and prepared they truly are to run our country. This is coming from a class that studies the media, how it works, and how to consume it wisely. There are too many people who don’t know anything about agenda setting and consume the media submissively which is dangerous in terms of politics. I think that politics use the agenda setting theory every time they appear publicly. In they campaigns and debates especially, they argue in ways that are smart and focused on what they know, what they can discuss intelligently, and what they can back up. I’m sure there are many things that these politicians think are important but they don’t have solid answers for us, so they avoid the topic. George W. Bush does this all the time. Talk shows are a good way of agenda setting for these politicians. When the presidential candidates go on Leno, they bring to him what they want to talk about, and for the most part, that is what they will discuss. Of course we are going to be put under the impression that they have it together and are the right person for the job as long as we agree with the position they take on the topics that they drill into us day after day; the “important” topics of course. In the same way, news stations might only broadcast stories that they can get their hands on. If they don’t have any good information or footage of an event, they will probably air a shot of a celebrity sighting or the worlds largest cookie made before they mention the event that they couldn’t get more information on, no matter what is more important.
Post a Comment