Agenda Setting - News Media or the Audience

I noticed how the progression of the readings on the topic of agenda setting translated theory into practice. The book chapter discussed the roots of the Agenda Setting Theory by McCombs and Shaw. The subsequent article honed in on a specific example of possible agenda setting; the election in India possibly being influenced by Google search results. The third reading took a big-picture approach as to how members of our society, such as certain groups, can actively contribute to the setting of the agenda.

Overall, it seems that we have yet to reach a consensus as to who (individual or group) is solely responsible for setting the agenda. It could be individuals/groups in our society, journalists/reporters, or news organizations. Or, as the author mentions, the "Operation Chiefs" (the gatekeepers) may responsible for agenda setting by setting the agenda for the agenda setters. To me, the takeaway is that the process of agenda setting is bidirectional. As in, we (the audience) show our interest in content that suits out needs (Uses & Grats) while the media propagate content that they think will suit our needs. Without further research to indicate precisely who plays which role in the process of agenda setting, we are stuck between a rock in a hard place if we want to know how to influence or control the process, or indicate causation. 

I can see how agenda setting may relate to Reinforcement Theory and selective exposure in that the audience’s belief that a certain topic is important is reinforced when they see the topic being discussed in the media (since the media are an authoritative figure and what they broadcast merits attention). Additionally, members of the audience are likely to have their attitudes or beliefs reinforced when they are viewing content that aligns with their existing attitudes or beliefs. In this instance, the media are influencing the setting the agenda for the audience. From the angle of selective exposure, I think the viewers more so contribute to the setting of the agenda when the audience only seek out, from what is readily available, the information that suits their needs. As a result, searches results for specific topics are likely to increase, and viewership may be likely to increase during the specific topic related coverage (e.g. catastrophes). The media are creating various content, and waiting to see which stories the public will flock to. In this sense, the audience are setting the agenda for the media by providing feedback to the media. 

The last article discussed the idea that what the majority shows interest in will become the agenda. It would be interesting to measure the development of the majority, and at what point the majority become the majority (or is it only a perceived majority because only those who let their position be known are the ones being accounted for). Is it because majorities already exist, and beliefs and ideas that rest outside of the space of the majority are suppressed?

To me, I see agenda setting as a social constructivist view because it’s not likely that the media are able to cover all facets of reality in its entirety. Not only that, but I think we can agree that framing is inherent in media coverage. Thus, a perception of reality becomes reality to the audience.

Lastly, in the wake of recent protests and the resulting media attention, I think the term “interest aggregations” may be applied to agenda setting. As Robert Merton, the sociologist who coined the term, stated, “the press will be forced to cover [the group’s] issue.”