Agenda Setting Theory (McCombs & Shaw, 1972)

 

Introduction

Communication theories help us understand how the media influences the way people think, behave, and form opinions. One of the most influential among these is the Agenda Setting Theory, developed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in 1972.

This theory emerged during a period when television and newspapers were dominant sources of information, particularly during political elections. McCombs and Shaw conducted their landmark study during the 1968 U.S. presidential election in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. They discovered that the issues most frequently covered by the media were also perceived by the public as the most important.

Their work demonstrated that the media may not tell people what to think, but it significantly influences what people think about — forming the foundation of the Agenda Setting Theory.

Concept and Definition

The Agenda Setting Theory suggests that the media shapes public perception by determining the importance of issues through the amount and type of coverage they receive.

According to McCombs and Shaw, the media acts as a gatekeeper, filtering vast amounts of information and highlighting certain topics while ignoring others. This selective presentation of information influences how audiences prioritize issues in their minds.

Core Idea

The media doesn’t tell us what to think, but it tells us what to think about.

Through repetition, placement, and prominence, the media creates an agenda — a ranked list of issues that appear to be most important to society.

Levels of Agenda Setting

Agenda setting operates on two distinct levels that describe different ways the media influences public perception:

1. First-Level Agenda Setting (Issue Salience)

This level focuses on which issues the media emphasizes.
When the media repeatedly covers topics like inflation, unemployment, or climate change, these issues become salient — that is, more important — in the minds of the public.

Example:
During election campaigns, if news channels consistently highlight healthcare and education, voters begin to see these as the most critical issues, regardless of other social concerns.

2. Second-Level Agenda Setting (Attribute Salience)

This level deals with how issues or people are portrayed. It focuses on the attributes or aspects emphasized by the media.

Example:
When reporting on environmental policies, the media may focus on the economic costs or the moral responsibility of protecting nature. This framing affects how audiences think about the issue, not just what they think about.

The Chapel Hill Study (1972)

McCombs and Shaw’s Chapel Hill study is the foundation of the theory. They surveyed undecided voters during the 1968 U.S. presidential election and compared their perceptions of important issues with the content of news media outlets.

Findings

• There was a strong correlation between the issues the media emphasized and the issues the public viewed as most significant.

• The study proved that media attention influences public priorities, even without directly changing individual opinions.

This research shifted communication studies by showing that media influence is subtle but powerful, shaping the public agenda rather than dictating personal beliefs.

Applications and Contemporary Examples

Agenda setting continues to play a key role in political communication, journalism, and digital media.

Traditional Media Example:

During election campaigns, television debates and newspaper coverage often determine which issues dominate public discussion — such as national security, economic reforms, or corruption.

Social Media Example:

• In the digital era, hashtags and trending topics on platforms like Twitter (X) and Instagram serve as modern agenda-setting tools.
• For instance, movements like #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter gained momentum because digital media prioritized and amplified these social issues.

Criticism and Limitations

While Agenda Setting Theory remains influential, it has faced several criticisms:

• Audience Selectivity: People now choose media sources that match their beliefs, reducing the media’s power to set a common agenda.

• Fragmented Media: The rise of online and social media has created multiple agendas, not one unified public agenda.

• Active Audience: Modern audiences are more critical and interactive, not passive consumers of media content.

• Algorithmic Influence: Online platforms use personalized algorithms, creating filter bubbles that limit exposure to diverse viewpoints.

These factors make agenda setting more complex in the digital age, where influence is shared between journalists, influencers, and users.

Relevance in the Digital Era

Despite its challenges, the theory remains highly relevant today. The concept has evolved into related models such as Agenda Building (how news agendas are formed) and Framing Theory (how issues are presented).

In the age of 24/7 news and social media, the process of agenda setting happens faster and more dynamically. Influencers, online communities, and algorithms now participate in shaping public priorities alongside traditional journalists.