By The American Contemporary
It is an undeniable fact that bias exists in some form in all of us. Whether it is based on our faith, morals, political opinions, or lived experiences, it is an inescapable inevitability that we exude some degree of influence and partiality whenever we interact with the world around us. This could be conscious or unconscious, ranging from innocent turns of phrase or specific framing of information, to more malicious or deliberate attempts to persuade and manipulate. While this generally poses little threat at smaller scales between individual communications, when these biases are allowed to occur before large audiences, as is the case with social media as well as reporting/journalism, the ramifications can be more substantial. Most people are aware that media bias exists, as it has been well studied and well reported over the decades. What most people may be less familiar with however is the more modern research around these trends, specifically relating to a media/communications studies topic known as agenda-setting, as well as the more nuanced methods by which it acts. Here, I hope to provide a general background of these tactics and influences, and discuss them from a more politically fundamental approach.
Before delving into the specifics, we must first solidify our understanding of agenda-setting. In its simplest form, it refers to any practice by a media outlet (which generally applies to news agencies, but can also apply to individuals, entertainment, private corporations, and governmental bodies and representatives) why which public opinion can be shaped, guided, or influenced unnaturally. In essence, these phenomenon occur to shape public discourse and public opinion, and ultimately guide it over time. This phenomenon is generally accepted academically, having been demonstrated throughout the years in a multitude of forms. What academics cannot agree upon however, is both the primary methods by which this tends to occur, and the extent to which it truly affects public opinion (at least in the most direct sense). To better understand this, let’s explore some of the ways in which agenda-setting occurs.
First and perhaps the most intuitive, is the notion of agenda-setting via accessibility. This form of bias comes from media outlets (or anyone really) selecting both the story and data to report on as well as the frequency of reporting for a particular topic. For example, consider the frequency of reporting by major news outlets on current popular topics, such as the Ukrainian-Russia war or the Israel-Hamas conflict. These conflicts have found themselves at the center of both social media and legacy media discussion since their beginning, with private business and governmental bodies chiming in as well. Yet, despite the apparent interest in conflict and war, little to no coverage comparatively was given to Armenia in 2023 following accusations that Azerbaijan was preparing to commit genocide against its people. Similarly, little to no media attention was spent covering a series of attacks from Islamic extremists in Nigeria against Christian Nigerians, despite thousands of people being injured or killed, and tens of thousands being displaced. For one reason or another, the media outlets found that these conflicts did not support their goal, whether it be profit, viewership, personal agenda, etc., and the resulting limited reporting resulted in many not even being made aware.
And speaking of setting a particular agenda, the next aspect worth discussing is that of gatekeeping. This aspect of agenda-setting postulates that some form of information generally passes through multiple parties (or “gates”) before it is released and published. In the case of a newspaper, this may be the original author of the article, followed by review by editors, and finally, approval by the publisher. At any point along the way, aspects of the story may be changed or removed based on the individual wants/needs of the reviewer, introducing the potential integration of bias, corruption, or misinformation. Oftentimes, things such as “clickbait” headlines could be added here, as publishers know these are more likely to garner attention after publication. Exaggeration, misrepresentations of stories, or even undisclosed speculation based on personal interpretation could all occur here, corrupting the overall report.
The notion of choosing specific headlines or choosing to report on specific aspects of a story also could relate to both framing as well as priming. The former details the manner of speech by which a story is reported, choosing specific words or perspectives to detail. For example, reporting on immigration while only speaking to pro-immigration individuals would not give a detailed understanding of the issue in its entirety. Using emotional pleas and sentiment is another method of framing, as it supplements factual reporting with feeling, making readers or viewers feel more inclined to help. Priming generally occurs through both delivery before and during reporting itself. Choosing to make specific stories the front-page item conveys importance to the reader, and makes the story seem more critical than it otherwise could be. Stories could also be framed in certain ways that poison the well of the reader’s mind. If a company’s earnings reports are given in a financial column entitled, “this week’s losers”, even if the company missed projections by a small degree, public opinion would likely be more pessimistic given it was reported as a “loser”.
There are many other aspects of agenda-setting which are worth exploring, but let’s consider a few examples of how agenda setting has been shown to impact the public. A particularly topical example from both a media perspective as well as a governmental one is the COVID-19 pandemic reporting. News outlets around the world emphasized topics such as infection rates, government responses, vaccine development, and public health guidelines, all of which resulted in considerable public fear, global shut downs, and misinformation surrounding vaccines and treatment. By focusing on stories around infection rates, fatalities, and the rate of hospitalization, the general public was more content to allow local authorities to take actions which otherwise likely would have been challenged, such as ordering shut-downs, restricting movement, and allowing mandated vaccination practices for businesses and for federal employees.
Social movements, such as those for climate change, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and others, have all benefited in growth as a result of media attention and framing. Black Lives Matter was generally reported favorably amongst news agencies following the death of George Floyd resulting in a substantial uptick in donations, most of which has begun to level off following loss of media attention following the accusations facing the organization regarding misuse of funds. While these particular groups tend to fall under the more traditionally liberal category, this is true of more traditionally conservative organizations as well. The National Rifle Association frequently sees an uptick in donations following shootings, especially when said reports are broadcast nationally, such as school shootings. Additionally, as the media continues to report on aspects of the purported “culture-war” between the morals and ideals of liberals and conservatives, counter-culture brands and products have found unique growth opportunities, such as Jeremy’s Razors or Strive Asset Management, both of which found prominence following reported actions from established companies such as Gillette or Blackrock.
Thus, it becomes clearer how media outlets are able to influence and impact public opinion, discourse, and the general process of life within a country. However, it would be both negligent and untrue to place the blame exclusively on the media. As it turns out, the general public is also to blame (at least to some extent) for this trend in agenda-setting. One potential source which has been studied is the public attention feedback loop. This occurs when the public grows passionate about a particular topic, either in action or over channels such as social media, resulting in companies and media agencies covering the story to take advantage of the trend for additional traffic. This media attention then propagates further action from the public, causing more media attention, ending in a seemingly endless loop of media coverage until one side lapses. The Israel-Hamas conflict is a good example, as members of either side protest frequently for their beliefs, resulting in media coverage, which sparks additional outrage and subsequent protests, and so on. Similarly, companies are able to influence reporting trends and public opinion as well. AI is a good example of this currently, just as electric vehicles were just a few years ago. Many software companies or automotive manufactures reporting on their new EV lineup and their commitment to switching to a full electric offering, or software companies releasing their own version of AI-assisted chat tools, cause a surge in discussion and acquisition of these products so that people can experience them for themselves. This results in more reporting, and pressures other companies to follow suit so they do not miss out on potential revenues.
The impacts of agenda-setting also need not be so direct. Some studies have shown that for specific groups of people on specific topics, the influence the media has over shaping their opinions is minimal. However, what they were able to discover is that even if they cannot directly control how someone thinks, they can cause a reactionary change in behavior. One example of this is voting for unwanted candidates in elections. An individual may align more readily with a 3rd party candidate, however following extensive media reporting on the primary options, this person may instead choose the perceived lesser of the two evils (that is, their second or third choice) in order to ensure their least favored candidate is not elected. People similarly have been shown to act in spite of media, especially in places where the media is not trusted. Finally, the opinion of a media outlet by the public can dramatically impact the reporting they do, as well as the biases and views they features. One study on scientists interacting with media outlets showed that if the scientists viewed the media unfavorably, or if they saw no direct benefit to them or their work, they were less likely to report their findings. However, scientists who viewed the media as helpful to their work would more readily participate in reporting, skewing the breadth of topics reported by the news agency, and limiting the viewpoints offered. Similarly, news outlets were more likely to ask scientists who worked in fields aligning with their interests and viewpoints. As a result, companies are able to convey a sense of authority and expertise on complex technical matters by using research while neglecting a wide range of alternative studies or details.
Similar to media outlets, companies and government actors are frequent co-belligerents in the war of agenda-setting. Oftentimes, the government itself (at least in democratic republics) is focused on short-term reactionary policy making, as these choices have the most direct impact on voters who will vote on the candidate’s continued incumbency. By giving the impression of action in the public eye, they are better able to paint themselves in a productive light, and thus have a better chance of winning reelection. One example of this could be the passing of various gun control legislation laws in the US. Regardless of one’s position on the issue, it is a constitutional right to keep firearms. Thus, most if not all control laws are eventually stricken down through litigation. Most politicians tend to be aware that this will occur, and will only result in bureaucratic bloat and wasted taxpayer dollars, and will do nothing to keep anyone safer or improve any personal rights. However, for the politician it still is a victory, as they appear to be taking action for their voters, and thus secure good will.
So, knowing this background, where does that leave us from a policy making standpoint? From a political fundamentalist perspective, the root core of the issue is one of accounting for bias in these systems, and either creating systems though which individuals are empowered to sit through multiple perspectives to reach their own conclusions, or the introduction of regulation on reporting efforts as well as agenda-setting. Of course, such a proposition is largely impossible, as our own biases and opinions on situations where more than one answer could be correct would make it impossible to properly tell what is and is not agenda-setting. Further, any systems which seek to control the spread of information would likely only cause a reduction in freedom of speech.
Thus, from a fundamental perspective, I would see a need to foster an environment where 1) competition between news outlets is open enough such that independent and contrarian viewpoints are accessible, 2) clear pathways of information handling are given to the public (this being particularly necessary for government agencies, and 3) that while freedom of speech is open, a clear distinction is made (and enforced) between opinion and news. To explain this point further, consider slander or libel. These consequences of purposeful misrepresentation of a person’s character that result in damages is not protected speech, as it is agreed upon that it offers no constructive benefit to the public, and further seeks to erroneously detract from an individual. If we similarly enforce a policy by which media agencies must disclose their biases and/or must make clear distinctions between entertainment and reporting, we could allow the freedom of speaking freely on a variety of topics while also making it clear what is and is not true, potentially mitigating some degree of agenda-setting. Of course this theoretical solution does have issues, and enforcement would be relegated to business at scale rather than the individual, but it represents one potential solution in which all parties are satisfied (at least to some extent).
As stated above, there is no way to eliminate agenda-setting. It is a natural by-product of our beliefs and agendas, for better or worse. What we can do however is learn to recognize this, account for it, and work to limit our use of it wherever possible. Further, if we can be trained to recognize these trends, we as citizens are empowered to reclaim a considerable degree of power from media and government actors who may otherwise use these methods to drive public opinion.