8017 27696 2 pb agenda setting entrevista

7/17/2019 8017 27696 2 PB Agenda Setting Entrevista

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/8017-27696-2-pb-agenda-setting-entrevista 1/12

REVISTA PAUTA GERAL

ESTUDOS EM JORNALISMO

DOI 10.18661/2318-857X/pauta.geral.v2n2p124-136

ISSN 2318-857X

Revista Pauta Geral - Estudos em Jornalismo, Ponta Grossa, vol.2, n.2 p. 124-136, Jul/Dez 2015.

Nova obra discute o terceiro nível dateoria Agenda-Setting

Maxwell McCombs e Lei Guo lançam ainda este ano The

Power of Information Networks: New Directions for Agenda

Setting , um estudo empírico em diferentes países daEuropa, América do Sul e Ásia, além dos Estados Unidos1

Entrevista com Maxwell McCombsJ.H. Jones Centennial Chair in Communication Emeritus

University of Texas at Austin

A Revista Pauta Geral apresenta, de forma inédita, entrevista com oprofessor da Maxwell McCombs (Universidade do Texas), responsável pela

elaboração da teoria do Agenda-setting. Nesta entrevista, além de atualizar as

reflexões em torno da teoria e suas aplicações, ele recupera as origens da

hipótese até se tornar um dos mais fortes conceitos aplicados aos estudos da

formação da opinião pública pela mídia.

Mesmo de forma tardia – trata-se da segunda entrevista de McCombs

dada a revistas brasileiras sobre o assunto-, a presença da teoria do Agenda-setting na literatura nacional tem se consolidado como uma das principais

propostas de reflexão em torno dos efeitos da mídia em sociedades.

1 Entrevista realizada pelos professores do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Jornalismo daUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG) Cíntia Xavier, Marcelo Bronosky e Paula MelaniRocha e pelos mestrandos do mesmo programa Cléber Moletta e Elaine Schmitt.



REVISTA PAUTA GERAL



ISSN 2318-857X


Com esta entrevista, esperamos contribuir com os estudos a respeito do

jornalismo brasileiro e sua participação na formação da opinião pública.

Desejamos que ela sirva de estímulo no sentido de aperfeiçoar nossa

compreensão sobre a mídia brasileira, tão limitada por interesses particulares.

Pauta Geral - Since 1972,

researchers have been using

Agenda Setting in their studies.

Sometimes, they are utilizing it as a

hypothesis, as you showed in your

study in Chapel Hill. Nonetheless,

after this study in Chapel Hill, you

utilized agenda setting like a theory

in your discussions. What are the

aspects that transformed Agendasetting into a theory, in your opinion?

McCombs: Agenda setting beganwith a small study of undecidedvoters in Chapel Hill, North Carolina,during the 1968 U.S. presidentialelection. This seminal study testedthe hypothesis that the prominenceof various public issues in the news

media – their salience on the mediaagenda – influences the salience ofthose issues among members of thepublic. In subsequent studies, thathypothesis has been expanded toinclude media and public agendasdefined by many other objects, suchas public figures, institutions, andeven countries. Research on thisexpanded hypothesis ranging acrossa wide variety of objects is nowreferred to as the First-level ofAgenda setting, and remains a veryactive area.

Subsequent researches in thedecades since Chapel Hill haveidentified five additional aspects of

Photo: Rebecca Scoggin McEntee



REVISTA PAUTA GERAL



ISSN 2318-857X


Agenda setting. In other words, whatbegan as a simple hypothesis hasevolved into a detailed theory withsix distinct theoretical aspects. All sixof these continue to be activearenas of research.

In 1972, the next presidential electionafter the Chapel Hill study, ourresearch introduced a secondaspect of the agenda-settingprocess, the psychology of Agendasetting. Our perspective was that themedia did not have unlimited powerin focusing public attention oncertain issues and other objects.Agenda setting was not a return toearlier theories, such as thehypodermic theory. We believedthat there were constraints on media

influence, and in the 1972 Charlottestudy we began to define what

those constraints are. A key aspectof the agenda setting process is thepsychological concept of need fororientation. The core psychologicalidea here is that people feel a needto understand their surroundings,that is, in new or unfamiliar settingsthey have a need for orientation. Anindividual’s level of need for

orientation is defined by therelevance of a topic and the level ofuncertainty about that topic. Peopleturn to the news media forinformation about various topicsthey consider relevant and about

which they desire additionalinformation. The greater anindividual’s need for orientation is,

the greater the agenda settinginfluence of the media on that topic.

An additional aspect of what hadbecome a theory of agenda settingappeared in 1976. The Chapel Hilland similar subsequent studies

analyzed agendas of objects. But, inturn, these objects have a variety ofcharacteristics, various attributesthat define them. When the media

talk about some object, they don’t

just name the object, they describeit in some fashion. And this is thesecond-level of agenda setting,attribute agenda setting. The basicresearch model is the same: to

determine if there is a high degree ofcorrespondence between the publicand media agenda.

The intellectual father of agendasetting is Walter Lippmann, whose1922 book, Public Opinion, beganwith a chapter titled, “The worldoutside and the pictures in ourheads.” His thesis was that the media

are the bridge between the worldoutside and the pictures in ourheads. Using his phrase “the pictures

in our heads,” the first level ofagenda setting asks: What are thepictures about? The second level of



REVISTA PAUTA GERAL



ISSN 2318-857X


agenda setting asks: What are thedominant features of these pictures?

And once we ask these twoquestions, there is an obvious followup question: What are theconsequences of these pictures? Thisbrings us to the fourth aspect ofagenda-setting theory, where wereturn to considerations of media

effects on attitudes and opinions.When we began agenda settingresearch in 1968, many people wereconvinced that there were little orno media effects on attitudes andopinions. So we went off in adifferent direction to look at mediaeffects, the impact of the media onthe salience of objects andattributes. But now we have come

back to the question of mediaeffects on attitudes and opinions,but now looking at it in a much morenuanced way. We don’t expect all

of the content of the media to havean impact on people’s attitudes and

opinions, only those aspects of thecontent that people pay attentionto in order to fulfill their need for

orientation. The consequences offirst and second level agenda settingfor attitudes and opinions are afourth aspect of the theory.

A fifth aspect of agenda-settingtheory is concerned with the sourcesof the media agenda. Here, the

media agenda, which has been anindependent variable, becomes adependent variable. In the 1980sscholars began to ask: If the publicagenda is set by the media agenda,who sets the media agenda? Thelayers of influence identified by thisaspect of agenda setting includeexternal sources of news, such aspublic relations, and the professionalvalues and traditions of journalism,including especially the influence of

news organizations on each other.This latter area is now referred to asintermedia agenda setting.

The sixth, and most recent aspect ofagenda-setting theory is networkagenda setting. Some psychologistsand philosophers hold that people’s

mental representations operatepictorially, diagrammatically orcartographically. In other words,audiences map out objects andattributes as network-like picturesaccording to the interrelationshipsamong these elements. From thisperspective, the news media transferthe salience of relationships among

a set of elements to the public.These sets of elements could be theobjects on the media and publicagendas, the attributes on themedia and public agendas, or acombination of objects andattributes, which is to say, a fully



REVISTA PAUTA GERAL



ISSN 2318-857X


integrated set of objects and theirattributes. These sets of relationshipsamong elements of the media andpublic agendas are the third level ofagenda setting.

Initial exploration of the hypothesisthat the news media can transfer thesalience of relationships among a setof elements to the public focused on

the transfer of the salience of therelationships among a set ofattributes from the media to thepublic.

To afford a comparison withtraditional attribute agenda setting,this pilot study conducted networkanalyses on datasets initiallycollected by Kim and McCombs

(2007). Studying candidates for Texasgovernor and US Senator, Kim andMcCombs found strong attributeagenda-setting effects in analyses ofeach candidate separately and forall four candidates combined.Attributes salient in the newscoverage of the candidates alsowere salient in voters’ descriptions of

these candidates. Reanalysis of

these data found significant networkagenda-setting effects consistent

with the attribute agenda-settingeffects in the original study. Forexample, the overall correlationbetween the media and publicattribute agendas in Kim andMcCombs (+0.65) corresponds withthe correlation (+0.67) between themedia and public network agendas.The graphic presentation of thesetwo networks are presented in thefigure.

Theoretically and analytically, firstand second-level agenda settingtreat objects and their attributes asseparate and distinct disaggregatedelements. Of course, in realityobjects and their attributes arebundled together in mediamessages and in public thought and

conversation. Our forthcoming book,The Power of Information Networks(Lei Guo & Maxwell McCombs,editors. New York: Routledge),discusses the theory andmethodology of network agendasetting and presents 13 empiricalthird-level studies from the UnitedStates, Europe, South America and

Asia. This is an exciting new frontier inagenda setting research.



REVISTA PAUTA GERAL



ISSN 2318-857X


PG - More than 450 studies have

explored the agenda-setting

hypothesis. Did you expect this

proportion of studies when Shaw and

you analyzed the first study of

agenda setting, in Chapel Hill?

McCombs: Back in 1968, Don and Idefinitely were not clairvoyant aboutthe future of agenda settingresearch. As noted in the discussionof Q1, we tested a straightforwardhypothesis about the effects ofmedia coverage of public issues on

the public’s perception of theimportance of these issues. In theyears since the scope of agendasetting has expanded tremendouslythanks to the insights and creativityof scholars around the world.

PG - The agenda-setting theory

anchors some researches in

communication and journalism in

Brazil. In the debate about journalism

specificities in relationship with other

fields of knowledge, we defend that

agenda setting is a journalism

theory. Are there any debates about

the specificities in Communication

and Journalism, among American

researchers?

McCombs: The boundary line in theacademic world between journalismand communication is frequently ablurred one. The vast majority of the400-plus studies of agenda setting todate involve the agenda of thenews media. In this regard, agendasetting is a media-centric journalismtheory. However, the contemporaryversion of agenda setting theory,which was discussed in some detailin Question 1, also is very much acommunication theory because itcorporate the full sweep of masscommunication from the origins ofthe media agenda to the



REVISTA PAUTA GERAL



ISSN 2318-857X


consequences of agenda-settingeffects for attitudes and opinions.

As I note in Chapter 8 of Setting the

Agenda:

“Beginning with the Chapel Hill study

and continuing to this day, thedominant domain of agenda-settingresearch is public affairs, particularlypublic issues. A very different set ofdomains with a significant literaturedating from the past decade or sohas been reviewed in this chapter.These civic and cultural domainsrange from educational andreligious institutions to a society’s

collective memory of its past,contemporary museum visits in

Greece and global interest inprofessional basketball.” (p.142, 2ndedition)

In short, a significant portion ofrecent agenda-setting research iscommunication research, but not journalism research. I don’t think it is

particularly productive to spend time

looking for a line of demarcationbetween journalism andcommunication. Scholars shoulddesign their agenda-setting studies interms of their specific interests andnot worry about whether they are

journalism studies or communicationstudies.

For journalism and communicationprograms in the U.S., the boundaryline is somewhat arbitrary and variesfrom campus to campus. TheChapel Hill study was conducted inthe School of Journalism and Mass

Communication at the University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill. At thattime, courses were offered in both

journalism and advertising. Todaythe school also offers courses inpublic relations, strategiccommunication, and a host of other

journalism and communicationspecialties. I moved from Chapel Hillto Syracuse University, whoseNewhouse School is intenselyfocused on the training ofprofessional journalists. However, thefull name of the school is theNewhouse School of PublicCommunication. Here also inaddition to various journalismspecialties are courses in advertisingand public relations. Here at the

University of Texas at Austin, theSchool of Journalism where I am onthe faculty is one of five units in theCollege of Communication. Theother units are the School ofAdvertising, Department ofCommunication Studies,



REVISTA PAUTA GERAL



ISSN 2318-857X


Department of Radio, Television &Film, and the Department of Speechand Hearing Disorders.

While my background and researchinterests center on journalism, I havefound it stimulating to be on thesethree faculties that encompass avariety of perspectives on journalism

and communication.

PG - The internet enabled an

increase in communication and

visibility of the third sector. There are

news sites, some exploring different

devices and providing the public

information about some companies,

such as NGOs, associations, social

movements etc. How can this

practice be investigated from the

perspective of agenda setting?

McCombs: The internet hasintroduced a vast new array ofcommunication channels. From anagenda setting perspective, thereare now many new agendas toinvestigate. Some of these fall in thetraditional domain of agenda-setting

research, public affairs. But as thediscussion of Questions 3 & 4 noted,recent agenda-setting research hasexpanded into a variety of new civicand cultural domains.

To fully understand the expandingscope of agenda setting, particularly

with the appearance of the internet,it is useful to distinguish between theconcepts, domains, and settings ofagenda setting. The core conceptsof agenda-setting theory are anobject or topic agenda, an attributeagenda, and the transfer of saliencebetween agendas. This theoreticalcore also should include theconcept of need for orientation,

which is one of the key contingentconditions for the strength of theseagenda-setting effects.

These theoretical concepts can bestudied in many different domainsand settings. Beginning with theChapel Hill study and continuing tothis day, the dominant domain ofagenda-setting research is publicaffairs, particularly public issues. But

as we just noted above, a variety ofnew domains have been explored inrecent decades.

Within each of these diversedomains, agenda setting can bestudied in a wide variety of settings.That is to say, the operationaldefinitions of the core concepts ofagenda-setting theory can beparticular aspects of many different

domains. In the traditional domain ofpublic affairs – indeed, in most ofthese domains – the most studiedsetting is the media agenda-publicagenda dyad. But also foundamong the many different settings inthe research literature are the links



REVISTA PAUTA GERAL



ISSN 2318-857X


MEDIA AND PUBLIC ATTRIBUTE NETWORKS (Kim & McCombs, 2007)

Media attribute agenda

Public Attribute Agenda



REVISTA PAUTA GERAL



ISSN 2318-857X


among the various mediathemselves, links between sourcesand the news media, and theinfluence of personal conversationson the public agenda. Finally, use ofthe concepts of agenda-settingtheory to investigate these variousdomains has taken place in a widevariety of geographic settingsworldwide at many historic points in

time.Moreover, the appearance in recentdecades of the internet and akaleidoscopic mix of newtechnologies has blurred thetraditional boundaries between thevarious communication media andtheir content. Mass communicationonce meant the large-scaledistribution of identical messages,

particularly through newspapers,television, and radio. The newcommunication channels, such asFacebook, Twitter, and blogs, aremass in that large proportions ofsociety use them, but the messagesflowing through these channels areindividualized. These new channelsredefine mass communication andgreatly enlarge its range of settings.

Separating the core concepts ofagenda-setting theory from theiroperational definitions across avariety of domains and settings,enables us to see the past moreclearly and to envision the directionsof new research. This distinction

between core concepts andoperational definitions also clarifiesthe various – and sometimesconfusing – definitions of agenda-setting proffered by various scholars.Hewing to the original domain andsettings of agenda-setting research,some narrowly define agendasetting as the transfer of issuesalience from the media agenda to

the public agenda. A broaderdefinition that I frequently cite, butstill hewing rather close to theoriginal domain and its settings,states that elements prominent onthe media agenda frequentlybecome prominent on the publicagenda. Both definitions are correct,but neither encompasses the fullrange of agenda setting theory andresearch that exists today and that

will be added to the literature in thenear future. Recognizing thedistinction between concepts,domains and settings provides auseful context for defining and forunderstanding the broad range ofagenda-setting phenomena.

In this expanded communicationlandscape, news media channels – now greatly expanded in number – continue to play a major role. Withthe transformation of thecommunication landscape someobservers predicted the diminution, ifnot the disappearance, of agenda-setting effects on the scale that wehave observed them over the past



REVISTA PAUTA GERAL



ISSN 2318-857X


half century. Despite the popularityof speculation on this possibility, theoverwhelming preponderance ofthe evidence to date suggests thatthe agenda-setting role of the newsmedia endures.

An extensive longitudinal analysis ofthe agenda setting influence of New

York Times’ coverage on the public’s

responses to the Gallup Poll’s ‘most

important problem facing thecountry’ question from 1956 to 2004found variations in the strength ofthese effects, but no discernibletrend over time (Tan & Weaver,2014). Although media use patternsamong different generations dodiverge in the new communicationenvironment, state-wide surveys inNorth Carolina and Louisiana found

little difference in agenda-settingeffects among the younger, middle,and older generations. Greaterattention to the internet and muchless attention to traditional mediaamong young adults had littleimpact on the magnitude ofagenda-setting effects (Coleman &McCombs, 2007).

Both the strength of agenda-settingeffects in past decades and theircontinuing strength in contemporarysettings result from longstandingpatterns of behavior in the mediaand among the public. The highdegree of homogeneity amongmedia agendas found in the original

Chapel Hill study continues incontemporary settings. Boczkowski(2010) not only found a high level ofhomogeneity among the newsagendas of the major print andonline newspapers in Buenos Aires,but also noted the increasingsimilarity of these news agendasfrom 1995 to 2005, a trend that heattributes to the facilitation of

journalists’ long-standing habit ofmonitoring the competition by theplethora of news now available onthe internet and television.

Among the public, strong agenda-setting effects result from civicosmosis, the continuous exposure toa vast sea of information from manychannels of communication(McCombs, 2012). Applying network

analysis to Nielsen data on TV andinternet use from March 2009collected from over 1,000 homes,Webster and Ksiazek (2012, p.39)noted, “We find extremely high levelsof audience duplication across 236media outlets, suggestingoverlapping patterns of publicattention rather than isolated groupsof audience loyalists.”

During the 2006 Swedish nationalelection, Stromback and Kiousis(2010) measured the impact of dailynews use across nine major newsmedia – a mix of newspapers,television and radio – and foundthat:



REVISTA PAUTA GERAL



ISSN 2318-857X


“... attention to political news exertsa significant and rather stronginfluence on perceived issuesalience and that attention topolitical news matters more thanattention to various specific newsshows on television and in radio, orto different newspapers.” [p.288]

This finding does not deny that thereare powerful and influential

newspapers, broadcast stations, andweb sites. However, zooming out fora broader look, it is the vast gestaltof communication voices thatdefines our social fabric. More oftenthan not, the major effects ofcommunication result from thecollective impact of the media anda continuous process of civicosmosis.

References

Boczkowski, P.J., 2010. News at Work:

Imitation in an Age of Information

Abundance. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.

Coleman, R. & McCombs, M., 2007.

The young and agenda-less? Age-related differences in agenda-setting on the youngest generation,baby boomers, and the civicgeneration. Journalism & Mass

Communication Quarterly 84, 299 –

311.

Kim, K. & McCombs, M., 2007. Newsstory descriptions and the public’s

opinions of political candidates. Journalism & Mass Communication

Quarterly 84, 299 – 314.

McCombs, M., 2012. Civic osmosis:the social impact of media.Comunicacion Y Sociedad 25, 7 – 14.

McCombs, M., 2014. Setting the

Agenda: Mass Media and Public

Opinion. Second edition. Polity Press,Cambridge, UK.

Stromback, J. & Kiousis, S., 2010. Anew look at agenda-setting effects – comparing the predictive power ofoverall political news consumptionand specific news media

consumption across different mediachannels and media types. Journal

of Communication 60, 271 – 292.

Tan, Y., & Weaver, D.H. (2012).Agenda Diversity and agendasetting from 1956 to 2004.

Journalism Studies, 14, 773-789.

Webster, J., Ksiazek, T., 2012. Thedynamics of audiencefragmentation: public attention in an

age of digital media. Journal ofCommunication 62, 39 – 56.

Recebido em: 15 de Agosto de 2015Publicado em: 28 de setembro de2015

8017 27696 2 pb agenda setting entrevista

Documents