2007
DOI: 10.1177/107769900708400405
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Agenda-Setting Effects among the Media, the Public, and Congress, 1946–2004

Abstract: This paper examines the longitudinal evolution of correspondences among the issue agendas of the mass media, Congress, and the public from 1946 to 2004. The time unit is one year. Data are derived from the New York Times coverage, Gallup's Most Important Problem series, and Congressional hearings. The evolutions of, as well as the causal relationship among, the three agendas and their agenda-setting effects are analyzed and discussed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
46
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
2
46
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…With the rise of new media, the potential agenda-setting power of traditional media is called into question. Scholars have long discussed the ability of the mainstream media to shape which issues the public considers to be salient, based on the relative attention provided to some issues over others (McCombs and Shaw 1993;Tan and Weaver 2007;Scheufele and Tewksbury 2007). As the fathers of agenda-setting theory put it, "Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position" (McCombs and Shaw 1993, 176).…”
Section: The Application Of Agenda-setting Theory To Youtubementioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the rise of new media, the potential agenda-setting power of traditional media is called into question. Scholars have long discussed the ability of the mainstream media to shape which issues the public considers to be salient, based on the relative attention provided to some issues over others (McCombs and Shaw 1993;Tan and Weaver 2007;Scheufele and Tewksbury 2007). As the fathers of agenda-setting theory put it, "Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position" (McCombs and Shaw 1993, 176).…”
Section: The Application Of Agenda-setting Theory To Youtubementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The large majority have demonstrated first-order agenda-setting effects, most frequently in relation to the public agenda (Barabas and Jerit 2009;Iyengar, Peters, and Kinder 1982;McCombs and Shaw 1972), but also in relation to public officials and the government agenda (Baumgartner and Jones 1993;Kingdon 1995;Wanta and Kalyango 2007), and sometimes both (Gonzebach 1992;Leff, Protess, and Brooks 1986;Tan and Weaver 2007). Others delve more deeply, demonstrating second-order effects, again with respect to both the public agenda (Gollust, Lantz, and Ubel 2009;Iyengar and Simon 1993) and the government agenda (Baumgartner and Jones 1993;Soroka 2002).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To test hypotheses of prediction or causality for correlational survey data, regression analysis "is by far the most widely used and versatile dependence technique" (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998, p. 141). To further investigate the hypothesized directional nature of the relationships, Granger tests are subsequently employed using time-lagged units (t-1) (Freeman, 1983;Granger, 1969;Tan & Weaver, 2006).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%