refLECTURE X: "Puppets on a String"

Everyone has an agenda. While agenda setting may only be a 'theory', like many of Einstein's theories, it's pretty much law. But there are two sub theories in terms of the media: that it suggests what the public should focus on according to frequency and prominence in coverage; and that suggests how people should think about an issue.

There's reality. But then there's how we come to know of it, talk about it, understand it, and form our own opinion of it. This is a product of four agendas: what the public perceive as important, what the policy and decision makers think are important, what corporations believe are important, and then there's the issues discussed in the media. The mass media does not produce an unaltered reflection of reality, but rather they 'filter and shape it'.

We recognised that there have been some effective 'agenda setters' in the past, namely Adolf Hitler and Leni Riefenstahl, who harnessed the power of images. But before we could go off the tangent of media corruption, the counter argument was made.

"Agenda setting is not always the diabolical plan by journalists to contorl the minds of the public but 'an inadvertent by-product of the necessity to focus the news." (McCombs)  

But whether it's a conscious effort or not, there are many ways to join the agenda setting 'family'.
1. Media Gatekeeping- what they choose to reveal to the public. You only need to flick between Channel 7 and 9 to realise that there's some news specifically left off the broadcast.
2. Media Advocacy- promotion of a message through the media. Health is popular one hammered in the media, trying to get 'brownie' points with the public.
3. Agenda Cutting- where truth and reality of the world isn't being represented. Where the media covers what will sell, like celebrity, rather what we 'should' know, like war and poverty.
4. Agenda Surfing- 'bandwagoning' onto latest media sensations. Whether it's the most viewed Youtube video of a cat, or what's trending on Twitter.
5. Diffusion of News- the process of informing the public of an important event. Who decides how it is communicated? The media or the source itself?
6. Portrayal of an Issue- bias, slant, side, angle all influence how the public perceive the issue. The more media outlets, the larger variety of portrayals, allowing the public to formulate their own perception.
7. Media Dependence- how dependent we are on the media reflects our susceptibility to agenda setting. Many can't go hours without checking Facebook or Twitter, how much are they influenced on a daily basis?

Rehash. Agenda setting is a theory. There are positives: its explanatory, predictive, organisational powers, with its scientific side which allows for further research. But there are negatives: it doesn't really consider the fence sitters (barely effected by agenda setting), how people consume news, that the news does not (usually) create or conceal problems rather just prioritises events, and then there's New Media...

And so here we are. Caught in the middle of the tug-o-war. One side is the agenda, the other is public responsibility. Mark Twain once said as a member of society you can't help but feel 'if you don't read the news paper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed'. Are we really just puppets on a string, or can we actually form our own perception of reality, uninfluenced by the media?