Agenda Diversity and Agenda Setting From 1956 to 2004

Frame Complexity and the Financial Crisis: A Comparison of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany in the Period 2007-2012

“…Entropy is a measure originating in thermodynamics and information theory (Shannon & Weaver, ) concerning the spread of observations across a defined number of discrete categories, weighted by the occurrence of these categories. Other researchers either used Simpson's D as a comparable measure (Carpenter, ; Tan & Weaver, ), also known as the Hirschman‐Herfindahl index or as the Laakso‐Taagepera index, or used instructions for manual coding to infer the degree of complexity from associations and connections between textual elements (Suedfeld & Tetlock, ). Since almost everything either occurs or co‐occurs at least once in the huge amount of news about the financial crisis, an elementary count of the number of different groups of issues and stakeholders as in answers to questions in public opinion surveys (Allen & Izcaray, ) would not have been informative.…”

“…Agenda complexity has been measured as nominal diversity , which is the number of issues a particular social unit considers salient (Allen & Izcaray, ), and as thematic diversity , which is the semantic variety of issues as defined by their distinctiveness (Peter & de Vreese, ). Recently, Tan and Weaver () also conceptualized agenda diversity as the number of category designations given to different program formats, issue categories, demographic features, and viewpoints presented within the media. Jennings, Bevan, and John () operationalize issue diversity as the number of issues, and issue‐intrusion as the diversity of associations between issues.…”

“…The core idea was that “the salience of a particular issue on the public agenda is a function not only of its salience on the media agenda, which is the original agenda‐setting hypothesis, but also of the salience of competing issues on both the media and public agendas” (McCombs & Zhu, , p. 496). Subsequent studies confirmed that the media might be stunningly successful in telling us not only what issues, but also how many issues, to think about (Tan & Weaver, ; Wanta, King, & McCombs, ), although effects were sometimes weak at the aggregate level and even insignificant at the level of individual news consumers (Peter & de Vreese, ). Further research extended agenda‐diversity effects to frame‐diversity effects (Huang, ).…”

Agenda-Setting in Russian Media

“…Previous studies suggest that the excessive reduction of communicative complexity expressed in prevalence of one issue (or its one often stereotypical interpretation) in the news is an indicator of the crisis (Kleinnijenhuis, Schultz, and Oegema 2015). The agenda-setting theory can be extended because the media tell us not only what issues to think about, but also how many issues we should think about (Tan and Weaver 2013). At the same time, the situation in which one issue clearly dominates the agenda often points to serious economic problems (Kleinnijenhuis et al 2015) or diplomatic conflicts (Suedfeld and Tetlock 1977).…”

Newspaper Review Show in the Broadcast Media Space in Ghana

“…It concluded that there is a "displacement effect" on print journalism rather than "supplementary." Tan and Weaver (2013) delved into the concepts of "agenda diversity" and "agenda-setting" and ran tests to investigate the causal relationships among the longitudinal changes in public agenda diversity of the New York Times's content diversity and the New York Times's agenda-setting effect on public opinion. Their study unveiled that despite the fact that increased public agenda diversity decreased the paper's public agenda-setting effect and the issue agenda diversity had fallen over time, overall, agenda-setting effect between the newspaper and the public had not waned over time.…”