Anda di halaman 1dari 10

Agenda-setting theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search

The agenda-setting theory is the theory that the news media have a large influence on
audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence
and space to give them.[1] Agenda-setting theory’s main postulate is salience transfer. Salience
transfer is the ability of the news media to transfer issues of importance from their news
media agendas to public agendas. "Through their day-by-day selection and display of the
news, editors and news directors focus our attention and influence our perceptions of what are
the most important issues of the day. This ability to influence the salience of topics on the
public agenda has come to be called the agenda setting role of the news media."[2]

Contents
[hide]

• 1 History
o 1.1 Foundation
• 2 Functions
• 3 Diffusion
• 4 The Accessibility Bias
• 5 Cognitive Effects Model
• 6 Characteristics/Tenets
• 7 Levels of agenda setting
• 8 Usage
• 9 Strengths and weaknesses of theory
• 10 See also
• 11 References
o 11.1 Notes

o 11.2 Further reading

[edit] History
[edit] Foundation

The media agenda is the set of issues addressed by media sources and the public agenda
which are issues the public consider important.[3] Agenda-setting theory was introduced in
1972 by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in their ground breaking study of the role of
the media in 1968 presidential campaign in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[4] The theory
explains the correlation between the rate at which media cover a story and the extent that
people think that this story is important. This correlation has been shown to occur repeatedly.

In the dissatisfaction of the magic bullet theory, McCombs and Shaw introduced agenda
setting theory in the Public Opinion Quarterly.[4] The theory was derived from their study that
took place in Chapel Hill, NC, where the researchers surveyed 100 undecided voters during
the 1968 presidential campaign on what they thought were key issues and measured that
against the actual media content.[4] The ranking of issues was almost identical with a
correlation of .97, and the conclusions matched their hypothesis that the mass media
positioned the agenda for public opinion by emphasizing specific topics.[5] Subsequent
research on agenda-setting theory provided evidence for the cause-and-effect chain of
influence being debated by critics in the field.

One particular study made leaps to prove the cause-effect relationship. The study was
conducted by Yale researchers, Shanto Iyengar, Mark Peters, and Donald Kinder. The
researchers had three groups of subjects fill out questionnaires about their own concerns and
then each group watched different evening news programs, each of which emphasized a
different issue. After watching the news for four days, the subjects again filled out
questionnaires and the issues that they rated as most important matched the issues they
viewed on the evening news.[6] The study demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship
between media agenda and public agenda. As of 2004, there were over 400 empirical studies
examining the effects of Agenda Setting.[7] The theory has evolved beyond the media's
influence on the public's perceptions of issue salience to political candidates and corporate
reputation.[8]

[edit] Functions
The agenda-setting function has multiple components:

• Media agenda are issues discussed in the media, such as newspapers, television, and
radio.
• Public agenda are issues discussed among members of the public.
• Policy agenda are issues that policy makers consider important, such as legislators.
• Corporate agenda are issues that big corporations consider important.

These four agendas are interrelated. The two basic assumptions that underlie most research on
agenda-setting are that the press and the media do not reflect reality, they filter and shape it,
and the media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those
issues as more important than other issues.

[edit] Diffusion
The media uses diffusion to spread ideas and aid in its agenda setting. Opinion Leaders and
boundary spanners are very important to the media at using their networks to pass on the flow
of information.

An opinion leader is often someone who is thought of by others to know a significant amount
of information on a topic or is an "expert". This could be anyone from a specialist in a certain
field, a politician who is the head of a specific congressional committee, or a mom who is
very active in the PTA. They are often at the center of a social network, more attentive to
outside information and capable of influence. Since the opinion leaders are those in a social
network who are most likely to watch the news or pay attention to the news media, they are an
extremely important tool at spreading information to the masses.
Boundary Spanners are those in a social network who can span across various social
networks. They can be essential to the flow of novel information. Boundary spanners can be
used by the news media in setting its agenda by getting information and ideas to a variety of
social networks, rather than just one.

A study showing the effects of diffusion was Project Revere. Sociologists at the University of
Washington from 1951 to 1953 would drop leaflets from an airplane onto a town. They then
would see how long it would take for the information to pass by word of mouth to those who
did not get a leaflet. Their findings showed that children are very effective in the diffusion
process, thus proving how easy it is for a child to be affected by the news media.

[edit] The Accessibility Bias


S. Iyengar's article titled "The accessibility bias in politics: television news and public
opinion" looks at just this theory.

He states, "In general, 'accessibility bias' argument stipulates that information that can be
more easily retrieved from memory tends to dominate judgments, opinions and decisions, and
that in the area of public affairs, more accessible information is information that is more
frequently or more recently conveyed by the media."[9]

The Accessibility Bias is effective because people are cognitive misers. We have limited
resources (such as time) and cannot learn about every single subject there is. We also like to
use heuristics or "shortcuts" when it comes to learning about topics that we may not have an
interest in or are not particularly educated in. This is why we turn to the news media to gain
this information. So if the news media decides to show a certain topic more often than another
it shapes the agenda and shapes what people remember and call back to at a later time.

[edit] Cognitive Effects Model


Early media effects studies done by Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee showed that political
campaigns have very little effect on voters, but instead that those closest to them (family and
friends) as well as cognitions.

Cognition is a term referring to the mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and
comprehension, including thinking, knowing, remembering, judging and problem-solving.
These are higher-level functions of the brain and encompass language, imagination,
perception and planning. (Defined by Psychology at about.com).

The Cognitive effects model found that the media has an indirect influence on an audiences'
attitude. A viewer already has set ideas and opinions, the media cannot do much to change
those. However by showing certain stories more often than others and shaping the agenda
they can shape what an audience puts importance on. For example, if the media reports more
on the economy than on international news, then people will have more information on the
economy and think that the issue is more important than other things that are going on around
the world.

[edit] Characteristics/Tenets
Research has focused on characteristics of audience, the issues, and the media that might
predict variations in the agenda setting effect.

Humans are curious by nature, we as a species have an innate drive to understand the
environment around us. This disconnect of not knowing our surroundings or dissonance, as
Leon Festinger would put it, means we either need to change our way of thinking or change
our behavior to come back into a state of consonance or connection. Orientation is a term to
describe the need for individuals to orient themselves to their surroundings/environment. In
the case of agenda setting theory, we know that news media provide this orientation.

Mccombs[10]states that, "need for orientation is a psychological concept, which means that it
describes individual differences in the desire for orienting cues and background information."
Two concepts: relevance and uncertainty, define an individual's need for orientation.
Relevancy is the first and of primary importance as an individual will feel less dissonant if a
situation or issue is not personally relevant. Hence, if relevancy is low, people will feel the
need for less orientation. There are many issues in our country that are just not relevant to
people, because they do not affect us. Many news organizations attempt to frame issues in a
way that attempts to make them relevant to its viewers/readers. This is their way of keeping
their viewership/readership high "Level of uncertainty is the second and subsequent defining
condition of need for orientation. Frequently, individuals already have all the information
that they desire about a topic. Their degree of uncertainty is low."[11] When issues are of high
personal relevance and uncertainty low, the need to monitor any changes in those issues will
be present and moderate the need for orientation. If at any point in time viewers/readers have
high relevance and high uncertainty about any type of issue/event/election campaign there
was a high need for orientation.

Research done by Weaver in 1977 suggested that individuals vary on their need for
orientation. Need for orientation is a combination of the individual’s interest in the topic and
uncertainty about the issue. The higher levels of interest and uncertainty produce higher levels
of need for orientation. So the individual would be considerably likely to be influenced by the
media stories (psychological aspect of theory).[3]

Research performed by Zucker in 1978 suggested that an issue is obtrusive if most members
of the public have had direct contact with it, and less obtrusive if audience members have not
had direct experience. This means that agenda setting results should be strongest for
unobtrusive issues because audience members must rely on media for information on these
topics.[3]

Media salience: a key independent variable in agenda setting theory is mostly recognized as a
single construct. Theoretical explications of media salience scholarship varies throughout the
agenda setting literature. Spiro Kiousis perused the relevant literature and discovered that 3
dimensions of media salience emerged: attention, prominence, and valence.[12] Thus
developing his multi-constuct model of media salience.

• Attention: based on the amount of coverage/exposure the news media give an object.
• Prominence: A framing technique used to highlight or position an attribute/object in a
context that communicates its importance. Kiousis also refers to just the presence of
news stories covered by prestigious news organizations(e.g. Washington Post, New
York Times, etc...) as a signaling factor to the public in giving news stories
prominence. And,
• Valence: Refers to the affective (emotional) elements of the media content. "Attribute
coverage also transmits cues that shape the overall affective salience of issues,
candidates, and other objects (e.g., how interesting or appealing they are). Therefore,
affective elements in news can also enhance or reduce the overall salience of
objects."[13]

Quote on agenda setting- "The media doesn't tell us what to think; it tells us what to think
about"- Bernard C. Cohen (1963)

[edit] Levels of agenda setting


• The first-level agenda setting is most traditionally studied by researchers. Simply put,
the focus is/was on major issues/objects and the transfer of the salience of those
objects/issues. From these broad issues, agenda setting evolved to look not only at the
major issues/objects, but to attributes of those issues.
• In second-level agenda setting, the news media focuses on the characteristics of the
objects or issues. This transfer of attribute salience is considered second-level effects
or attribute agenda-setting. "The second dimension refers to the transmission of
attribute salience to the minds of the public. More specifically, each object has
numerous attributes, or characteristics and properties that fill out the picture of that
particular object. As certain perspectives and frames are employed in news coverage,
they can draw public attention to certain attributes and away from others."[14]In this
level the media suggest how the people should think about the issue. There are two
types of attributes: cognitive (subtantative, or topics) and affective (evaluative, or
positive, negative, neutral).
o Additionally, there are several theoretical concepts that fall under the umbrella
of attribute agenda setting. Some of these include: status conferral,
stereotyping, priming, gatekeeping(which happens in both levels), compelling
arguments, and of primary importance, the concept of framing.

1. Status Conferral: Status conferral refers to the amount of attention given to specific
individuals. "The news media bestow prestige and enhance the authority of individuals
and groups by legitimizing their status. Recognition by the press or radio or magazines
or newsreels testifies that one has arrived, that one is important enough to have been
singled out from the large anonymous masses, that one's behavior and opinions are
significant enough to require public notice."[15]
2. Stereotyping: Stereotyping is best defined by Taylor;[16] "Consensus among members
of one group regarding the attributes of another." Furthermore, a cognitive orientation
view of stereotyping helps illustrate why this helps attribute salience transfer. "The
cognitive orientation view assumes that humans are limited in the amount of incoming
information that they can process, and hence form stereotypes as one way to reduce
the cognitive burden of dealing with a complex world."[17] Which reaffirms the
previous notions of our brains being cognitive misers.
3. Priming: There are perspectives as to what priming actually is, but the primary
concept is such: "According to the priming theory, news media exposure presumably
causes the activation of related knowledge, which is more likely to be retrieved and
used in later judgments because it is more accessible in memory and comes to mind
spontaneously and effortlessly.", it's the actual act of link two different elements in
order to generate a general known idea.[18] The concept of priming is supported by the
accessibility bias argument as well as the principle of resonance as some attributes
may resonate longer with individuals than others. Iyengar and Kinder,[19] define
priming as “changes in standards that people use to make political evaluations.” This
definition is primarily focused on the political realm as Scheufele and Tewksbury[20]
go on to say that “priming occurs when news content suggest to news audiences that
they ought to use specific issues as benchmarks for evaluating the performance of
leaders and government.” As individuals make their choices in supporting/voting for a
(n) candidate/issue, they are more likely to add this evaluative dimension to their
decisions. This still follows the accessibility bias argument (memory based models)
and Iyengar and Kinder[21] take it a step further by arguing that “priming is a temporal
extension of agenda setting” and that just making issues/candidates salient, can affect
people’s decisions/judgments when making choices about political candidates/issues.
4. Gatekeeping: The concept of gatekeeping attempts to answer the question of who sets
the news media agenda? Mccombs,[22] states that we need to look at "three key
elements: major sources who provide information for news stories, other news
organizations, and journalisms norms and traditions." Major sources include: elected
leaders(national/local leaders), political campaigns, organizations, interest groups,
public information officers, and public relations professionals. Other news
organizations refers to how news organizations feed off of each other, borrowing
stories from one another or at times paying for them. It is widely known that the New
York Times is considered the intermedia-agenda setter for most news organizations
(i.e., most new organizations take their lead from the times). Mccombs[23] notes that
"journalists validate their sense of news by observing and the work of their colleagues.
Local newspapers and televisions stations note the news agenda offered each day by
their direct competitors for local attention. Local outlets also note the agenda advanced
by new organizations with higher status. In the US these are the major regional
newspapers, the Associated Press, the national television networks, and the elite
newspapers in New York and Washington." Many times the executive editor/producer
in news organizations have to make the final decision with regard to what gets
printed/televised and what doesn't. Finding stories that are newsworthy can be
difficult, but most journalists look for these characteristics throughout the information
they collect. These generally are: impact, proximity, timeliness, prominence,
importance, conflict, contradiction, contrast, novelty, and human interest. Scanning
the environment and looking for these characteristics to ensure a story is newsworthy,
is a major part of the norms and traditions followed by journalism.
5. Framing: Although many scholars have differing opinions of what exactly framing is,
Mccombs[24]defines it as, "the selection of - and emphasis upon - particular attributes
for the news media agenda when talking about an object (the fact of cutting and
trimming news stories in order to filter it and shape it as the sender wish) . In turn, as
we know from attribute agenda setting, people who frame objects, placing various
degrees of emphasis on the attributes of persons, public issues or other objects when
they think or talk about them." In other words, it is not just is said in news reports, but
how they are characterized and presented. It is through this unique
characterization/portrayal of issues/objects that communicates certain meanings to
audiences apart from just stating facts and figures; the whole is greater than the sum of
its parts. Entman, 1993 not only defines frames as “involving selection and salience.
To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient
in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition,
causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item
described.”[25] But also goes on to describe these four functions: “1) defining
problems-determining what a causal agent is doing with what costs and benefits,
usually measured in terms of common cultural values; 2) diagnosing causes-
identifying the forces creating the problem; 3) making moral judgments-evaluate
causal agents and their effects; and 4) suggesting remedies-offering and justifying
treatments for the problems and predict their likely effects.”[26] It is through these four
functions that the news media can highlight/characterize certain
issues/candidates/problems/attributes and/or choose to ignore others. Furthermore,
Tankard, Hendrickson, Silberman, Bliss, and Ghanem"' defined news media 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, exclusion and elaboration."[27]
When the news media supply the context, select what to emphasize or exclude
information, they show us how to think about an object/issue/candidate. In order for
this to be effective the audience must be able to internalize the information and
“individual’s therefore apply interpretive schemas or “primary frameworks”
(Goffman, 1974, p. 24)[28] to classify it meaningfully.”[29] Journalists, political
campaigns, and the news media use these primary frameworks as a baseline to make
the understanding of issues easier for audiences, thus making them less complex.


o
 Clearly, trying to operationalize a definition for news framing can be
very tedious as subjective definitions vary from scholar to scholar.
Matthes states in his meta-analysis of framing literature that,
“translation of framing definitions to concrete, operational steps is not
transparent in a huge part of the literature. Some definitions are general,
giving little information about how to operationalize frames.”[30]

[edit] Usage
The theory is used in political advertising, political campaigns and debates, business news and
corporate reputation,[8] business influence on federal policy,[31] legal systems, trials,[32] role of
groups, audience control, public opinion, and public relations.[8]

[edit] Strengths and weaknesses of theory


It has an explanatory power because it explains why most people prioritize the same issues as
important. It also has predictive power because it predicts that if people are exposed to the
same media, they will feel the same issues are important. Its meta-theoretical assumptions are
balanced on the scientific side and it lays groundwork for further research. Furthermore, it has
organizing power because it helps organize existing knowledge of media effects.

There are also limitations, such as news media users may not be as ideal as the theory
assumes. People may not be well-informed, deeply engaged in public affairs, thoughtful and
skeptical. Instead, they may pay only casual and intermittent attention to public affairs and
remain ignorant of the details. For people who have made up their minds, the effect is
weakened. News media cannot create or conceal problems, they can only alter the awareness,
priorities and salience people attach to a set of problems. Research has largely been
inconclusive in establishing a causal relationship between public salience and media
coverage.[citation needed]
Another limitation is that there is limited research in the realm of non-traditional forms of
news media (i.e. Social Media, Blogs, etc...) and its Agenda Setting Role. Although blogs and
other forms of Computer Mediated Communication appear to be quickly gaining ground
against traditional news media outlets, more research still needs to be done. What is plainly
visible is that, "In an effort to survive, traditional newsrooms have embraced newsroom blogs
as an alternative vehicle for news delivery."[33] Yet, there still continues to be a socio-
economic gap (although likely a small one) between those who use use non-traditional forms
of news media and those who don't.

[edit] See also


• Availability heuristic
• Policy by press release
• Political agenda
• Sensationalism

[edit] References
[edit] Notes

1. ^ Brooks, Brian S., et al. "News Reporting and Writing". Seventh Edition. Bedford /
Missouri Group. Page 27. ISBN:0312396988
2. ^ Mccombs, M. (2004). Setting the Agenda: the mass media and public opinion.
Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishing Inc. p 1. ISBN:9780745623139
3. ^ a b c Miller, K. (2005). Communications theories: Perspectives, processes, and
contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill.ISBN:9780072937947
4. ^ a b c McCombs, M.E., and D.L. Shaw. (1972) The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass
Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36 p. 176-187
5. ^ Hamm, 1998
6. ^ Iyengar, S., Peters, M.D., & Kinder, D.R.(1982). Experimental demonstrations of
the “not-so-minimal” consequences of television news programs.American Political
Science Review, 76, 848-858].
7. ^ Mccombs, M. (2004)
8. ^ a b c Carroll C. & McCombs (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the
public’s image and opinions about major corporations’, Corporate Reputation Review.
6 (2003), pp. 36-46.
9. ^ Iyengar, S. (1990). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public
opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion and Research, Vol. 2. No. 1, 2.
10. ^ Mccombs, M. (2004). p. 54
11. ^ Mccombs, (2004) p. 55
12. ^ Kiousis, S. (2004) ‘‘Explicating Media Salience: a factor analysis of New York
Times issue coverage during the 2000 U.S. presidential election’’, Journal of
Communication 54, 71-87
13. ^ Kiousis, Bantimaroudis, & Ban, 1999 in Kiousis, S. (2004) Explicating Media
Salience: a factor analysis of New York Times issue coverage during the 2000 U.S.
presidential election, Journal of Communication 54, 6.
14. ^ Mccombs, M, Shaw, D.L., Weaver, D (1997). Communication and democracy:
exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Mahwah, New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. p. 29.ISBN:9780805825558
15. ^ Lazarsfeld, P.F., Merton R.K. (1948). Mass communication, popular taste and
organized social action, in Lyman Bryson (ed.), The Communication of Ideas. New
York, New York, Harper & Bros. p. 235.
16. ^ Taylor, D.M. (1991). p. 155. Stereotypes and intergroup relations. In R.C. Gardner
& R. Kalin (Eds). A Canadian Pyschology of Ethnic Relations. Teronto: Methuen. p.
151-171.
17. ^ Zanna, P., Olson, J.M.(1994). ISBN: 0805811192 The psychology of prejudice. V.
7, Hillsdale, New Jersey. p. 36.
18. ^ Mccombs, M, Shaw, D.L., Weaver, D (1997). p. 65
19. ^ Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American
opinion. University of Chicago. p. 63.ISBN: 9780226388571
20. ^ Scheufele, D. A & Tewksbury, D. (2007) Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming:
The Evolution of Three news media Effects Models. Journal of Communication 57
(2007) 9–20.
21. ^ Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987).
22. ^ Mccombs, M. (2004). p. 117
23. ^ Mccombs, M. (2004). p. 116
24. ^ Mccombs, M. (2004). p. 87
25. ^ Entman, R. (1993). ‘‘Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm’’,
Journal of Communication 43(4), 52
26. ^ Entman, R. (1993). 52
27. ^ James Tankard, Laura Hendrickson, Jackie Silberman, Kriss Bliss, and Salma
Ghanem, "Media Frames: Approaches to Conceptualization and Measurement" (paper
presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Boston, August 1991) as quoted in Golan,
G., & Wanta, W. (2001). Second-level agenda setting in the New Hampshire primary:
A comparison of coverage of three newspapers and public perception of candidates.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 247-259.
28. ^ Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization experience. New
York: Harper and Row. ISBN:9780930350918
29. ^ Scheufele, D. A & Tewksbury, D. (2007). 12
30. ^ Matthes, J. (2009) What's in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in
the world's leading communication journals, 1990-2005, Journalism & Mass
Communication. 359
31. ^ Berger B. (2001). Private Issues and Public Policy: Locating the Corporate Agenda
in Agenda-Setting Theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(2), 91–126
32. ^ Ramsey & McGuire, 2000
33. ^ Meraz, S. (2008). The blogosphere's gender gap: Differences in visibility,
popularity, and authority. In Paula Poindexter (Ed.), Women, men and news. New,
York: Routledge.

[edit] Further reading

This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its
sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by
introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (April 2009)

• Balmas M. and Sheafer T. Candidate image in election campaigns: attribute agenda


setting, affective priming, and voting intentions. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research Vol. 22 No. 2.
• Cohen, B. (1963). The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. ISBN:9780877723462
• Davie W. R. and Maher T. M. (2006) Maxwell McCombs: Agenda-Setting Explorer.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 50(2), 358–364.
• Druckman, J., Jacobs, L., Ostermeir. (2004). Candidate Strategies to Prime Issues and
Image. Journal of Politics Vol. 66 No.4, 1180-1202.
• Groshek J. (2008). Homogenous Agendas, Disparate Frames: CNN and CNN
International Coverage online. Journal of broadcasting and electronic media. 52(1),
52-68.
• Huckins, K (1999). Interest-group influence on the media agenda: A case study.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 76-86.
• Iyengar, S., Kinder, D.R. (1986) More Than Meets the Eye: TV News, Priming, and
Public Evaluations of the President. Public Communication and Behavior, Vol.1 New
York: Academic.
• Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Problems and Opportunities in Agenda-Setting Research.
Journal of Communication. Vol. 43, No. 2, 100–127.
• Kosicki, G. (2002). The media priming effect: news media and considerations
affecting political judgements. In D. Pfau (Ed.), The persuasion handbook:
Developments in theory and practice (p. 63-80). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.ISBN: 0761920064
• Kim, S., Scheufele, D.A., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Think about it this way: Attribute
agenda-setting function of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue.

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 7-25.

• Kiousis, S., & McCombs, M. (2004). Agenda-setting effects and attitude strength:
Political figures during the 1996 Presidential elections. Communication Research, 31,
36-57.
• Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.
• McCombs, M.E., and D.L. Shaw. (1993). The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Research:
Twenty-Five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas. Journal of Communication. Vol. 43,
No. 2 , p. 58 – 67
• Reiley, K. (2008, Nov.20). The Never-ending campaign. Interview. p 56.
• Revkin, A., Carter, S., Ellis,J., and McClean A. (2008, Nov.) On the Issues: Climate
Change. The New York Times.
• Severin W., & Tankard, J. (2001). Communication Theories: Origins, Methods and
Uses in Mass Communication (5th ed.). New York: Longman.ISBN:9780801333354
• Wanta, W., & Wu, Y.C. (1995). Interpersonal communication and the agenda-setting
process. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 847-855.
• Weaver, D.H. (2007, Feb.) Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming.
Journal of Communication. Vol. 57 No. 1, 142 - 147.
• Yagade, A., & Dozier, D.M. (1990). The media agenda-setting effect of concrete
versus abstract issues. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 3-10.

• www.agendasetting.com