Agenda Setting: A Major Reason Not to Trust Everything You Read

Agendas are something that we constantly overlook. Even though each of us have our own personal goals with agendas set to achieve said goals, we are a part of other's agendas without knowing.  Agenda Setting is defined as the "ability [of the press] to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda." In other words, agenda setting is what the news media can do in order to get more people to view their content. They select what they believe to be the most important aspects of our society, and push that in the news. With this they convince society that because these stories are in the news everyday that they are what we need to focus on and be most worried about.

News stations, campaigns, political ads, and public relations representatives all use a variety of techniques in order to convey the 'importance' of a event, situation, and/or topic. The editors of the organizations that set agendas are the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers control what goes in and what goes out. Looking at gatekeeping in a news setting, editors have the final say on what is to be published. Ultimately, the things that society believes to be important are really what the editors of the major news stations believe to be important.

In my eyes there is a significant amount more of negative impacts than positive impacts of agenda setting. The only positive that I can think of myself is that agenda setting may highlight an issue that truly does need attention. The editor may actually believe choose to highlight something that is inspiring or truly devastating that will cause society to act on it with a united front. But in reality, today is all about the number of clicks that you get, not the quality of your content. The negatives of agenda setting that I can identify are that it prevents people from thinking on their own. With news stations such as CNN and Fox News who have millions upon millions of devoted listeners on a daily basis, these channels have the ability to heard their viewers like sheep. We see it so often. Last year I stopped watching the news because iI would get pissed off, even with the channel that I would lean towards agreeing with. Everything on CNN was how Donald Trump has done nothing but terrible things for the United States. While I don't like Trump at all, I have plenty of friends who can legitimately tell me how his time in office benefited their parents small businesses. When watching CNN, I would get sick and tired and the moaning and groaning anchors. All they would talk about is how Trump has done nothing for COVID, which he really didn't, but I don't need to see the same story 3 times a day for 3 consecutive months. My suggestion to the editors of both channels would be to find some more meaningful content, something that inspires people to do better in life. But what do I know? All they want are people to continue fighting with each other so they grow more and more loyal to their news station and continue to bring them advertisement opportunities.

The press has the ability to shape reality, the press does no reflect reality. While the news circulates between 3-5 major stories, they are not the only major events occurring in our world of almost 8 Billion people. The press gets people to focus on the issues they deem as important and by circulating these stories, the audience places more importance on the topic. Ways that the news can do this is through priming and framing. Priming is when something prepares another thing for use or action. These could be headlines that shout "BREAKING NEWS" or "LATEST UPDATE." Their all capital letters draw attention immediately to themselves no matter what medium you are viewing the content on. Immediately when opening the publication your attention is turned to the "BREAKING NEWS." The news will also bring in expert opinions or discussions in order to convey the message they are trying to send. Framing is sharping a contextualizing something that gets people to understand something a bit better. The problem with framing is that it is objective. There is a bias that influences the context that is shared with an audience. When people hear a cetain story, the first story that they hear is typically the one that they will stick with. Any other new information that they hear they will be suspect about it.

I really enjoyed talking about agenda setting, gatekeeping, framing, and priming. The news pisses me off. I never know what to accept or who to believe. I know there is truth in both sides, but what is the truth and what is the bullshit that further divides us? I don't watch news, I read stories about stuff I am actually interested in, I decide my my own importance. Sure, every publication has an editor, but check back to My Top 5 News Sources post to see what I mean. The only news source I am worried about of those five is the New York Times, I understand what side their bias leans towards. But I do feel they do a good god at representing opposing opinions. They invite people from the opposing side to share their opinions so we can better understand them, not so they can be bashed on national TV like CNN and Fox News does.