Talk:Agenda-setting theory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelaIanni (article contribs). Peer reviewers: YOWtapper, Anamaria Turmacu.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Dzmitryyuran.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

added cleanup tag

I added a cleanup tag because the parts about powerful and weak effects models seem pretty confusing and lacking in context -- the sentence "Hence, weak effects models make intuitive sense." certainly doesn't make intuitive sense to me. Joriki 13:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

weaknesses of the theory

This article strikes me as biased. There is a discussion of the theory's strengths but not of its weaknesses. Perhaps this would be appropriate for completeness if nothing else. For example, is the evidence accumulated consistent with the hypothesis that media cover issues because they are important to many members of "the public"? This question seems obvious to me and yet is is not addressed in the article. It needs to be addressed because this hypothesis is opposed to the idea that people think issues are important because they hear about them in the media (i.e. the agenda setting hypothesis

Additionally/Alternatively, perhaps something about the extent to which/how public opinion feedsback on agenda setting. Ex. Positive feedback: Whereby at the second level for instance an issue in the media is initially presented with moderately negative affective characteristics. This colours public opinion unusually effectively and the media (which must be responsive to public opinion to an extent to retain/enlarge its viewer base) responds by presenting the issue with increasingly negative effective characteristics. (Snowball effect) Scholar1984 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Scholar1984

Where's John Kingdon? Egads, what a skimpy, pathetic article.

Sorry I don't know how to fix links

but the Donald Shaw link to in this article is the wrong Donald Shaw.

This is the correct Donald Shaw.

https://s4.its.unc.edu/UNCExperts/uncexperts/getperson?ID=RFRWWRCFW

James Protzman (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC) James Protzman

DAB Donald Shaw · and Donald Lewis Shaw (born 1936), American social scientist and co-founder of agenda-setting theory. Ciao! --Pla y Grande Covián (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Cohen quote

The Bernard C. Cohen quote in the Characteristics/Tenets section is not exact. His words are: "It may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.” "It" refers to "the press". Source: Bernard C. Cohen, The Press and Foreign Policy, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1963, p. 13.

I'm not quite familiar with the technical procedures, so I hope one of you can fix this. FitterHappier (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dia^ (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the edits from User:Nanhyang9 for suspected copyviol from http://www.cyberessays.com/lists/describing-demonstrative-communication-with-examples-showing-how-demonstrative-communication-can-be-effective-and-ineffective/page150.html . Although the website says "free essays" the term and condition page states: No material within the site may be transferred to any other person or entity, whether commercial or non-commercial. You may not modify, alter, resell, redistribute, sublicense, display or make derivative works of any materials or content provided on CyberEssays.com. --Dia^ (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review Farhad Tehrani

Dear Soo,

In response to your proposed plan for editing your Wiki page, I would say that you have thoroughly identified the weaknesses of your page, and suggested how you are going to tweak those areas accordingly. First of all, I do agree with you that your AST Wiki page lacks visual evidence and a comparison table to clarifies the differences and similarities between framing and second-level agenda setting. Nonetheless, bear in mind that adding any picture or video won't be an easy job. Definitely, you have to be cautious over Copyright Infringement; a violation of the rights of the creator or rights holder. So, be careful of that.

In any event, if you felt that inserting a table is such a pain, then I would suggest to change the similarities and differences under the Framing and Second-level agenda setting to prose, which is always a better explanation and presentation than list format. You would get more info if you look up Manual of Style/Embedded lists. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#Prose_versus_lists. In addition, you may would like to apply this approach to the criticisms subsection as well. I also embrace the application of AST theory in a non-political context i.e Social Issues and Economic, however; make sure you can prop up your application of the theory by adding strong references.

Peer Review from Scott

Hi Sherrie, I was not familiar with the Agenda Setting Theory prior to reading through your article since we have yet to cover it in class, but I felt the article was very comprehensive and provided a great deal of information. The introductory section of the article discusses a couple of the prevalent studies which launched the Agenda Setting Theory into prominence, but is very light on the substance of the theory. A couple sentences which go further into the depth of the theory may be useful in providing the readership a better understanding of what the theory is about up front.

The theory does mention the Internet and briefly mentions social media in the ‘Advent of the Internet’ section, but I would assume that social media has played a much greater role on agenda setting and issue framing than the article gives credit to. This could be that studies simply have not yet been conducted to examine SM’s effects on policy maker and the news media. There have been numerous cases in the recent past where bloggers and SM networks have driven the valence of stories and introduced stories which have captured the nation’s attention, especially in presidential politics which the theory was originally meant to interpret.

The article does not discuss any of the other communications theories which are related to the Agenda Setting Theory. A short section at the end for “Related Theories” could be added to discuss similarities and differences between some of the other theories which discuss influencing public opinion, such as the Cultivation Theory. Additionally, the article is very comprehensive and well structured, but I think a more thorough edit needs to be conducted to correct some of the grammar and syntax errors. Copying and pasting the text of the article into a Word document may reveal many of these errors. Overall, the article is very informative and insightful. Sjs298-GU (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Tong

Hi Xinyu, you have done a great job editing this page. In general, the theory is comprehensively introduced to readers. I cannot find an obvious missing part. The structure of the page is clear and in a proper and logical sequence. I notice that you also added new content to the page—the emotion dimension of the theory and the third level agenda-setting. Those are substantial addition to the development of the theory.

In order to make the page more reader-friendly, I have two suggestions. First, in regards to the connections between two sequent parts, it is helpful to include one-sentence or less to lead the readers from one part to the other. This will also give readers a better sense of the whole logic of the theory. Second, the “research” part has space to be improved. This part truly includes a lot of content, but the headline “research” is too general. So maybe dividing the content under it into different sections with more specific headlines would be helpful for readers to locate the content they are interested in immediately through scanning the headlines. Also, this part can be more concise by better summarizing those related research.

Great job! Looking forward to your final edition. Tlgu201533 (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agenda-setting theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609184549/http://www.tandf.co.uk:80/journals/HBEM to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/HBEM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609184549/http://www.tandf.co.uk:80/journals/HBEM to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/HBEM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Agenda-setting theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716120634/http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/C45405%20resources/Berger%20private%20issues.pdf to http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/C45405%20resources/Berger%20private%20issues.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/HBEM
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/HBEM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Question

Have there been any new experiments in the recent years that should be added to this page? Beckyyy Fox (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Rebecca Fox

My constructive feedback: Great topic, Good effort, has pending issues

Thanks for putting immense effort for passionately creating a lengthy article. Some constructive feedback here.

• Not encyclopedic enough for a layman, e.g. full of technical/research jargon: Article has been written as someone's personal assignment, peer reviewed by his/her classmates, etc. I am unrelated stranger to all the previous editors.
• Changed I made: I tried to make it more encyclopedic by making following changes:
  • rephrase some text to me more comprehensible to an average reader (specially in lede and opening paragraphs of various sections), while retaining the technical jargon in the middle and tail-end paras of sections.
  • Relocate text under rephrased self-descriptive headings to improve flow and TOC (table of content) glance through readability and article navigation
  • Drive more traffic to and from this article: anchored various sections in this article .
    • Additional piping from this article to others
    • Piped other articles to anchored sections in this article
  • Enrich the context by adding "see also" to sections
  • Cleanup and categorisation of "see also" at the end of article for neater conceptualization of "mental map"

• Please help, pending changes/review:
  • Text in most sections still remain untouched, needs to be revisited and rephrased. I have only rephrased only section 2 and 3 as the article stands now, I added an opening paras, left the rest of content same but I did add some editing effects such as bold and italics, etc.
  • Convert the article into generic article on "agenda setting" and more the "agenda setting theory" into one section "academic research"
  • Article needs to be condensed and rephrased, specially technical aspects, however a lot of text in research rellated sectiosn cna eb reused with same citations in generic section after rephrasing

Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Further readings

Hi there, here are some further references I feel would be good areas to explore on this topic and to include. I would appreciate the feedback, thank you.

Exploring big data to gain insight into the complex interaction of framing in traditional social media and its mass media audiences. It also looks at figuring out who gets the power of setting these agendas.

A study was done to address the rise in interest for political CSR through the lens of general theories, such as legitimacy theory, the resource-based view and Habermasian political theory.

A study was conducted to understand the similarities and differences in agenda priorities that compromise police when analyzing their own audience.

MichaelaIanni (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Michaela Ianni

References

Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory and Frameworks Fall 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 6 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CloudyQi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: YutingWu215, JudyW16.

— Assignment last updated by Turnj (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review from CCT752 Fall 2022

For the structure, I think this page has consistent headings. However, it needs to apply some images or visuals as evidence. For instance, I think if it is hard to find images for abstract theories like this, the editors could add some visuals from experiments about this theory. I think this page did a great job in its organization, evidence, and content. I really like the section called “Application of agenda-setting theory for the study of various topics”. Specifically, this section includes the study of topics inside and outside the US. Meanwhile, it also includes future research topics. Thus, I think this section provides thorough information for further study on the theory and its related theories. Meanwhile, I think the editors provided thorough evidence through the links in the “See also” section and “Further reading” section. This page also included sufficient references. Overall, this is a well-edited page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YutingWu215 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

CCTP 752 – Fall 2022 - Peer Review by Judy

Overall, the article is well-structured and rich in references. What I find very interesting is the "Comparison of agenda setting with policy agenda-building" section, which distinguishes two terms with the same subject – media – but reflects media’s different functionalities and their relationships with different social groups.

Some improvements can be made, including:

1. In the history section, the introduction of the ‘development of "Agenda-setting theory"’ is much less than the "early research". I also noted that the article mentioned "more than 400 studies" related to agenda setting theory that were published after 1972. It would be helpful for readers to understand the research process on this theory and its uses in different communication settings if the chronological development of agenda-setting could be added here.
2. The "Three models of agenda-setting" section also lacks a detailed description of each model. It would be nice to have more examples of each model's real-life applications here.
3. As for the "Application of agenda-setting theory for the study of various topics", I personally don't see the point of categorizing the application of agenda-setting theory on a country-by-country basis. It might make more sense to classify by field.Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?

JudyW16 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Media

Voice 119.2.125.167 (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mass Media and Society

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Airalia, Amandalonsoo, SpaceWax, Anonymous - JJH 8 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ljc22b, Izzyabella2003, Efs20, Ks20ga, Ses21f, Tallahasseesportscaster.

— Assignment last updated by Iamclandestined (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: COMM 500 Theory and Literature of Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dimsumyo (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lynnpj29, Spritestar.

— Assignment last updated by Spritestar (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

three models edits

i edited this page to include descriptions of the three models of agenda-setting, with examples to help understanding of the topic. i used the following source to research my additions Airalia (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brikail (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Trolleyman32 (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Changes I've made to the Agenda-setting theory article

I didn't remove any original sections. However, I added the Agenda-setting and social media and conclusive research sections. I made some of my additions shorter in the original article. I put my lead information in the history, early research and agenda-setting theory sections (which I added). Dimsumyo (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Agenda setting theory

Critically discuss the agenda setting theory 41.57.16.3 (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)