Agenda Setting Theory and Narrow Perspectives of News Media

With the proliferation of the twenty-four hour cable news channels and the rise of the Internet, the news media is faster and more comprehensive than ever before. While this does not necessarily give the news media more influence now than when the masses got their news solely from newspapers or magazines, it does provide them with a greater platform and reach into the lives of their audience. While most news organizations currently operate under the auspice of objectivity, the fact remains that they are the ones deciding what is news and what is not. The agenda-setting theory explains the large influence news media outlets have on audiences by simply choosing what to report and how much attention to give to a story (“Agenda-setting theory”). This immense influence over its audience has become the subject of scrutiny by those that feel the objectivity of the news media is nothing more than an illusion fostered by the media itself.

Sociologist Herbert J. Gans, author of the 1979 book, Deciding What’s News, believes that journalists should be less concerned with the almost sanctified issue of “objectivity” and more concerned giving audiences a myriad of different perspectives in an attempt to improve society as a whole: “journalism has to be more than about the issues and problems that concern the white middle class mainstream. But multiperspectivism goes further; it also means reporting all ideas that could resolve issues and help problems, even if the ideas come from ideologically small groups” (Rosen). Gans’ hope is that journalism can encourage greater democracy in coverage, better educate the masses on political and economic issues, and facilitate more truth in reporting by emphasizing perspective over “objectivity,” which is often not objective at all.

The ideas of Gans are perhaps the best on how the news media can finally achieve the objectivity that it claims to seek, but continuously fails. Most Americans have become accustomed to getting news from organizations that make no apologies for reporting news from a decidedly narrow perspective, while claimed to be objective, fair, and balanced. The example of Fox News is perhaps the most dramatic in the past decade, with its decidedly right-wing take on the news, while proclaiming its position necessary as a counter to what it sees as an overly liberal news media. Fox News made a habit of claiming its objectivity, yet continuously failed to live up to its own ideals. Through its success, the rise of commentary shows, pundits, and other talking heads with specific agendas helped only to contribute to the great divisiveness that gripped the nation. If done under the blanket of multiperspectivism, this type of reporting would have been fine in presenting the conservative slant on the news. But, Fox News portrayed itself as an objective news outlet, misrepresenting itself and creating news stories strictly out of its own political agenda. This type of journalism is by no means objective, and helps show that objectivity is perhaps too much to ask from a news media so highly dependent upon ratings, advertising, and the politics of the corporations that own each respective outlet.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eexy-51sIao

There are few stories from the recent news that display the agenda-setting theory, as well as Gans’ ideas on subjective reporting, as the story concerning the “feud” between CNBC’s financial analyst, Jim Kramer, and The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart. Stewart criticized financial analysts on cable networks, including Kramer, for creating a circus-like atmosphere in the financial news world, which helped contribute to the easy money attitude that helped lead to the current financial crisis. Many news outlets picked up on the debate, including CNN, the origin of the clip; CNN’s Rick Sanchez shows each side of the story, with clips of Kramer defending his actions on numerous other news and entertainment shows, and clips of Stewart showing clips of Kramer and the many mistakes he made, as well as the ridiculous manner in which he made his predictions. While Stewart is a comedian and his show a satire of the news, Kramer is portrayed by himself and his station as serious financial analyst. The debate between the two became a widely reported news story illustrating the responsibility of the news media to report and represent itself honestly and accurately to its audience. It also helps illustrate Gans’ idea that openly subjective perspectives such as Stewart’s are just as valuable in creating honest discourse in the media as those that claim to strive for objectivity such as Kramer; while covertly subjective perspectives masquerading as objective are detrimental not only to the credibility of the news media, but also the political, economic, and social health of its audience.

Works Cited:

“Agenda-setting theory.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 9 Mar 2009. 16 Mar 2009.
.

Rosen, Jay. “Special to PressThink: Interview With Herbert Gans, America's Senior Sociologist of News.” PressThink. 13 Jan 2004. 16 Mar 2009. .