Week 9 Lecture: Agenda Setting in the Media

This week’s lecture was focused on agenda setting, and was absolutely jam-packed with information, so please excuse this novel of a blog.

 Agenda setting is described by the University of Twente as “the creation of what the public thinks is important”. It can be defined somewhat more verbosely as “the process of the mass media presenting certain issues frequently and prominently with the result that large segments of the public come to perceive those issues as more important than others. Simply put, the more coverage an issue receives, the more important it is to people

(Coleman, McCombs, Shaw, Weaver, 2008).” The picture below depicts this:

 As Dr Redman explained, “Agenda Setting is a theory, but like all good, solid theories is all a bit obvious really!” From what I weaned from this lecture, this theory is that the more coverage a program receives, the more important people think it is.

 There are 4 types of agendas:

1.       Public

2.       Policy

3.       Cooperate

4.       Media

All of which are interrelated and responsive to each other. However, it is with Media Agenda Setting that we, as JOUR1111 students are most interested in. The diagram below shows the connection between these types.

The “real world indicators”, as seen in the diagram, connect audiences to the news.

There are two basic assumptions of media agenda setting:

1.       The Mass media do not merely reflect and report reality, they filter and shape it.

2.       Media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.

Therefore, it is not the fact that media has the ability to set an agenda that is sinister, but there can be sinister choices in what is selected to portray. McCombs supported this, stating

“Agenda setting is not always the diabolical plan by journalists to control the minds of the public but ‘an inadvertent by-product of the necessity to focus’ the news”. However, Noam Chomsky disagrees rather whole heartedly “the real mass media are basically trying to divert people. Let them do something else, but don’t bother us (us being the people who run the show). Let them get interested in professional sports, for example. Let everybody be crazed about professional sports or sex scandals or the personalities and their problems or something like that. Anything, as long as it isn’t serious.”

This Agenda Setting Theory can be dated back to the 1920’s, when Harold Lasswell suggested that the mass media “injects” direct influence into its audience. This injection was known as the “Magic Bullet”.

Adolf Hitler knew the power of this “bullet” and, along with Leni Riefenstahl (a German film maker), produced such propaganda films as The Triumph of The Will (a link to this film can be found below).

§  http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DBBfYncHshJc

Walter Lippmann supported the position that people rely on the images in their minds in formulating judgments more that by thinking critically. He went on to state, "Yet in truly effective thinking the prime necessity is to liquidate judgments, regain an innocent eye, disentangle feelings, be curious and open-hearted."

McCombs and Shaw first defined media agenda setting in 1968, and came up with the hypothesis that  mass media have large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them. This theory may seem obvious to us nowadays.

There are two main levels of agenda setting. Dr Redman specified these: “the first is, for the most part, studied by researchers and emphasizes the major issues and the transfer of the salience of those issues. At this level the media suggest what the public should focus on through coverage. The second is essentially, how the media focuses on the attributes of the issues. The media suggests how people should think about an issue.” However, this may be a two way street. As many stories reflect processes of information trading between journalists and sources where each is seeking to manipulate the other.

The media sets an agenda “because they can” (Redman, 2011), having three major effects on its audience, including:

1.       Transferring issue’s salience from the news media to the public

2.       Transferring issue’s salience for both issues and other objects such as political figures

3.       Elite media often sets the agenda for issues in other media

Bernard Cohen supported this idea, stating “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”.

There are seven parts to the Media agenda setting “family”.

1.            Media Gatekeeping entails what the media chooses to reveal to the public.

2.                   Media Advocacy is the purposeful promotion of a message through the media.

3.                  Agenda Cutting is when the truth or reality that is going on in the world isn't represented, because interest is more important than the importance of the issue. For example, AIDS taking a backseat to Justin Beiber’s new haircut.

4.                  Agenda Surfing is the name given to the media’s tendancy to follows its audience’s trends,  and influence people’s opinions.

5.                  The diffusion of News is the process through which an important event is communicated to the public. It is the thought put into the how where and why or when news is released.

6.                   Portrayal of an Issue will influence how it is perceived by the public.

7.                  Media Dependence. The more dependent a person is on the media for information, the   more susceptible that person is to media agenda setting. Today, sites like Facebook and Twitter have revolutionized media dependence, with instantaneous updates.

The strengths and weaknesses of the agenda setting theory are displayed in the slides below (created by Bruce Redman, 2011)

The last point made in the lecture noted how the internet has revolutionized the 24 hour news cycle. This can be noted in a change in prime time, from one in time for the 6pm news, to three prime times at 6am, when people check their phones or Ipads when they wake up, 12 noon, at lunch breaks and 3 pm in the afternoon when there is little else to do at work.

We then spoke about the power of “spin” with the example of the Climate Change issue. It was made clear that the media can be a powerful force in alter people’s opinions.

Bridge To Brisbane

On the 11^th of September, I participated in the annual Bridge to Brisbane race, which is a ten kilometre run (or walk/crawl in my case) and raises money for particular charities. I thought I would just mention how interesting it was to note the number of TV crews that were covering the race, and how much footage they each must have received. However, that night at 6pm, less than a minute was spent on the event on the channel 9 news. I also found it interesting that many companies and groups used the coverage to advertise their products.

Very interesting indeed!

Week 8 Lecture - Public Media

This week’s lecture on Public Media was similar in structure to last week’s lecture. Public media was defined as “media whose mission is to serve or engage a public. Public media include traditional publicly-funded broadcasters and networks … as well as public uses of new platforms and distribution mechanisms, such as the Internet, podcasting, blogging. Increasingly the term "public media" is less associated with taxpayer supported media; it may be for profit so long as its ultimate purpose is to serve the public and not to turn a profit.”

The ABC and SBS are examples of the Australian landscape for public media, while internationally, the BBC, PBS, TVNZ, arte, DR, CBC, RTHK, NHK, 4 and npr make up this landscape. These companies are funded by governments, television license fees or donations from certain foundations, or a “hybrid” of more than one of these sources.

Public media, like commercial media, has a role in the democratic process, as it should have “public value”. Public value is made up of four main points.

1.       Embedding a “public service ethos”

2.       Providing value for the license fee (or, in Australia, value for the tax payer’s dollars that go towards producing programs)

3.       Weighing public value above market value

4.       Taking public consultations into account. This is now much more regular and causal, due to the invention and popularity of social networking sites such as twitter.

Public media is also required to provide “public service”. In 1985, the Broadcasting Researching Unit defined this “service” in several points:

·         Geographical universality:  Broadcast programmes should be available to the whole population.

·         Universality of appeal. Broadcast programmes should cater for all tastes and interests.

·         There should be special provision for minorities, especially disadvantaged minorities.

·         Broadcasters should recognise their special relationship to the sense of national identity and community.

·         Broadcasting should be distanced from all vested interests, and in particular from those of the government of the day.

·         Universality of payment. One main instrument of broadcasting should be directly funded by the corpus of users.

·         Broadcasting should be structured so as to encourage competition in good programming rather than competition for numbers.

·         The public guidelines for broadcasting should liberate rather than restrict broadcasters.

Although this definition was decided almost two decades ago, it gives a full description of the ideal role of the media. As such, programs displayed on public media (in particular the ABC) was to develop nation building, national heritage and national identity, and to enable and facilitate national conversations. However, Dr Redman inferred that, now, is not the case.

The commercialism of this form of communication depicts the subtle change in its nature. For example, in conjunction with the aforementioned forms of funding, the BBC makes $200 million a year in merchandising. So too does the ABC accumulate much of their funding from their various franchises. Indeed, 41% of Australian’s claim to source their news from the ABC, and 12 million watch the daily news on the ABC television channel.

Unsurprisingly, news is a huge part of public media, though nowadays it has a “new style”. This has both advantages and disadvantages, as displayed in the table below:

Advantages	Disadvantages
·         Serious ·         Broadsheet (not tabloid) ·         Importance over interest ·         Considered news (not quick or unchecked)	·         Boring ·         Elitist ·         Of limited interest ·         Poorly presented ·         Out of touch

Although it may have its faults, Public Media is important because is the last defender of investigative journalism. Robert Richter stated: “is such a special vehicle for voices to be heard … [for] visions and viewpoints … ignored by commercial media.” As such, the commercial style works through “the press” and aims to provide entertainment, utility and propaganda. It also has a social function.

However, the media platform does face challenges. Rupert Murdoch believed that government regulation of commercial media and big public media should penalise the poor, promote inefficient infrastructure, build inaccessible institutions (such as the ABC, BBC, ARD, RHTK), threaten the growth of independent news and investment in new forms of journalism and stunt the growth of the creative industries dampens innovation.

In this case, the supporters of public media have a “to do list” (as displayed in the lecture slide below).

The dependence issue is of particular interest, as commercial pressures for a certain group may result in political pressures for the other. The current perceived lack of political independence is the result of great control and more targeted funding. Because of these funding system, issues of bias and agenda arise.

The future of public media journalism was described in the lecture as ‘an expanded vision for “public media 2.0” that places engaged publics at its core … educating, informing, and mobilizing its users. … an essential feature of truly democratic public life … media both for and by the public. …’ However, as Dr Redman hinted, we are supposed to already have this.

This lecture was jam-packed with information. I found it particularly interesting that journalist’s on the ABC are not supposed to comment on news with their own opinions, as the company may not consent to these.

Lecture: Week 7

Before attending this week’s lecture, I had a look at the assigned reading on commercial media. Margaret Simons’ article (from Crikey.com) is titled The Content Makers, and is both entertaining and educational. It begins by comparing the friendly family that is Channel 7 to the somewhat abrasive, brusqueness of channel 9 news. The disparity between the two businesses is portrayed quite convincingly; however, I did wonder whether channel 9 did receive the short straw: it was illustrated as such terrible place to work that I’m wondering why anyone works there!

The article ends by commenting on the dying career that is journalism. It infers that other television channels will be overrun with reality TV and other “cheap” programmes. Although this seems rather grey, she states at the end of the chapter that there is hope for up and coming reporters: “if you get good content it can hardly be doubted that there will be buyers. Good content will always find buyers”. The message that I took from the article was that commercial media will, in the near future, pay for (and thus, will rule) the news.

This reading gave me a good background on the use and purpose of commercial media in Australia; the subject which the lecture focused on this week. Now, on to the lecture which focused on COMMERCIAL MEDIA. Please excuse the length of this blog, it was the most informative JOUR1111 lecture that I’ve been to this semester, and there’s a lot of material to retell.

Commercial media is profit-driven media production which is neither funded by government or licenses. As such, it survives or fails on how well it generates profit through selling advertising. Producing cable TV, newspapers (especially local newspapers), films, magazines, books, digital media and telecoms allows for commercials, propaganda and social advertising to be spread to audiences, who subscribe, sponsor or subsidize this.

“So?” I hear the smartie journalism students/lecturers ask, “What impact does commercial media have in a democratic society like Australia’s? In fact, according to the Hutchins Commission of 1947, commercial media has a social responsibility to be truthful and contextual, stand as a forum for criticism, be representative of all people and model the goals and values of society, as well as to have “full access to the day’s intelligence”.

However, as its success depends on how much money it makes, could commercial media simply be about making money? Authorities have clearly asked this question, and have taken steps to ensure that commercial media remains moral. For example formal state requirements, as well as legal prescription and state oversight have been put in place, as well as an “ethical wall” between commercial and social mediums. As C. Scott (Editor and Owner of The Guardian, once a “moral” paper) stated “comment is free, but fact is scared”.

John McManus believed that commercial media was corrupt and would cause a lack of quality in media, as the need for profit would override social responsibilities. However, controls have been put on commercial media in Australia, to avoid such corruption:

1.       Government agency which regulates content (such as the ban of Facebook in China)

2.       State press subsidies

3.       Licensed journalism (such as in Indonesia and East Timor)

McManus also inferred that unprofitable consequences would arise because of the inflated use of commercial media. These include:

·         A general “dumbing down” of information and news

·         Tabloidization

·         Newspapers only writing to please the audience

·         Third rate “Mickey Mouse” news

Thus it can be seen, there are many challenges related to the use and rise of commercial media. Jonathon Holmes stated on Media Watch this year, that:

“There was a time, not so long ago, when running a media company -be it one that specialized in newspapers, in radio, in television, or in all three -was a pretty simple job. Keep the costs within bounds, use your clout to ensure that governments didn't permit too much competition, make sure your content delivered audiences of a quality and in a quantity that your advertisers expected, and the money rolled in.”

There appears to be a fair degree of truth in his words. The diagram below demonstrates the process of that the appearance of more channels has caused.

But there is not only bad news. It could be that quality media is not disappearing, just moving to the digital sphere.

However, the future of commercial media does hold a lot of unanswered questions. For example:

·         How does Commercial Media continue to make profits if advertising revenue is declining?

·         How does it continue to serve the advertisers, audience and the public good?

·         What kind of audience can it expect to get?

·         What cumulative effect does this have on the practice of journalism and public communication?

Some suggest that quality news will always be sought after, while others (such as Guy Dobson) state that commercial media will bring fiercer competition and thus better programmes. It is expected that there will be a great move of existing customers to digital versions of their newsfeed, as well as an increase in pay walls on these news sites. Regardless of these challenges and supposed “solutions”, it seems to me that a growth of commercial media is inevitable, and that news must evolve with this in order to stay afloat.