The Agenda-setting role of the mass media

Maxwell McCombs talks about the relationship between what the media's agenda is, or what the media covers, and where public attention lies. The studies and the evidence he provides to show the strong correlation between these two things are extensive and stretch across the globe. But like I wasn't so surprised to find that the public agenda strongly reflects what the media is covering, how much the media is covering each topic, and what attributes and images of each story is being discussed or shown.

That is the job description of the mass media. The purpose of journalism is to keep people informed on what is going on and what is relatively more or less important. Unless the every individual in the general public has the time and the resources to find out exactly what is going on throughout the world, one has no choice but to rely on the media. Of course, skeptics and people who wish to dig deeper, seek more than one news source may be able to gain a stronger grasp on a particular story, but this doesn't mean the public, in general, is limited to what the media provides.

I'd like to know who started this cycle between media and public agenda. If journalists look to polls to see what the public cares about and if the public turns to journalists to figure out what to care about, it's hard to say if everyone is giving and receiving the most essential news. Journalists are people too, so they should be able to determine what people want or need. But they also have the power to steer their audience's interest in a particular direction.

From other things I've read, it seems like the general public hasn't been receiving the correct portions of relevant news stories. While most of the media are covering the War or the Presidential Campaign, people want to know about health insurance and gas prices. This means the media doesn't have complete control. People still have somewhat of an individual opinion as to what they want to know about. Images of the War and of the candidates may be strictly created by the media, but that doesn't mean that's the only thing the public is going to care about.

One important part of this article mentions a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the news is highlighting the health of the economy, the people may act according to what the news says is true. This can in turn validate what the media said was the health of the economy. What they said becomes more of a reality. I found this an interesting twist to the cycle.

No matter where the cycle begins and how many twists and turns there is along the way, you really can't argue with McCombs when he claims how closely related these two agendas are. After all, even without the evidence, it just makes sense that way.