Určenopouzeprostudijníúčely
A konefnli, stile je tieba zkournat, zda nizorovi vbdci v traditnim pro-
stiedi Litelovli nernanipuluji informace ve svtrn vlastnim ziijrnu,
ObzvlfiZtE plisobivy piiklad tohoto jeVu uvidi Abdul Musi (1983, 97)
v rhrnci studie prov6dgnC na jiinirn Celebesu v Indonezii: ,,V roce 1981
v odlehl6 vesnici ,jiZniho Celebesu vysvlitloval jeden vzdlilany statkii
chudyni rolnikbrn, jejichZ pracovni silu vyuZiva1k pbtovdni ryZe a cho-
vu dobytka, projckt pfesidlovani na Surnatru. Den piedtirn totif o pro-
jektu informovala tclevize a rnnozi rolnici se o tuto zprttvu velice zaji-
mnli, pravdepodobni! proto, Ee se zde ukazovala pole a ubytovini pro
presidlence a jejich rodiny. Ndzorovtt eutorita je v obav6 p?ed rno2nym
vliveln zprfivyna svd rodliky piesvEdEovala, Ze v provincii Larnpung, ne-
dalcko rnista urCeneho pro piesidlence, je rnnoho tygd, slond a jind di-
vokk zvEfe a i ejsou tam bandild. Vypriv51, Ee dravs zv6i a IupiEi tam za-
bili nlnoho piesidlepcb. Vysledkern jeho vyprivtni bylo .to, Ze se mu
podaiilo sousedy piesv8dEit. NeZ by dali piednost piesidleni, chudi rol-
nici mdEji zirstali ve vesnici,"
NiS piiklad roz\ro.jovjch zerni musirne ale posuzovat opatrng,
Pieviiind vCtSina studii o Sifeni inovaci byla providdna v industrializo-
vanych zernich. Typickou kiivku difqze ve tvaru S nelze v rozvojovjrcl.1
zelnich vZdy piedpoklddat. ZvlttStE tam, kde se k t8m, ktefi by z inovace
mohli mit prospgch, nelze vdbec dostat.
7.4. Agenda setting (urCovdni agendy)
Hypoteza o ,.agenda setting" -vytvdieni povEdorni a vyvolivini ve-
fejndho zijmu - byla poprv6 zkoumina McCornbsem a Shawern (1972)
v souvislosti s arnerickynii prezidentskyrni volbarpi v roce 1968. Autofl
shro~naZdovalisoubgini! data o ,,agendichU,tj. o tom, co bylo na poiadu
dne, ve zpravodajskych mediich a ve veiejnosti, a shledali rnezi tErnito
agentlami vysokg stuperi korelace, Autoii (1972, 177) tvrdili, Ze ,,maso-
vd media nastoluji agendu vWkaid6politick6 kampani tirn, Ze ovlivriuji
hlavni charakteristickb rysy postojd k politickjm otttzkirn", Agenda-set-
ling haznahje, Ze rnasovi media pfedern urzuji, kterd otttzky budou v da-
n i dobE poklddfiny za obzvliSt&dbletitd.
PTedpoklfidi se, Ze ddraz kladenj na n6jaky probldm neb0 aktufilni
otizku v rnasovych rnediich ovliviiuje jejich zvgrazn5ni mezi publikem
(srov. kap 5.4). KonkrCtnE to znarneni, Ze tdmata, na ndZ rnddia kladou
dbraz, budou vrlirnina pRrnliienC jejich viditelnosti. Media maji tudit
rnoc urEovat Zurnalistickymi prostfedky selektivni chovini publika. To
jest, media jsou poklidiina za velice rnocny nfistroj. ~ E k o i isejim nepri-
pisuje schopnost ovlivAovat, co si rnyslirne, do znaEn6 miry urf uji, o Eenl
pfernySlfrne,McCombs a Gilbert (1986) se p~kusiliu agenda-setting ve-
deckjrni prostfedky zjistit, jak nejldpe v kampani nastolit dank othzky.
Hlavnfmi prvky jsou:
1,kvantita zpriv (hlavni niznakem toho, coje dbleiitt,je to,jak fasto se
o zttleZitosti informuje);
2, redakEni Elenlini anebo prezentace, specifickd pro danC midiurn (pro-
minence, sjakou je pii'splivek ve zprivlich zobrazen),jako jsou napfi-
klad titulky, obrazovd rnateriily, zpbsob lfirnfini, nebo - v televizi -
zpornalend zibliry, grafika, titulky apod.;
3. rnira konfliktu piedstavovans ve zpravodajskt informaci (\I takovern
piipadl se tato zpravodajski hodnota stdvi pro publikum hlavnirn $lo-
dltkem) a
4. pOsobeni v Ease, kterC se napiiklad u novin a televizsl ligi - Stone
a McCombs (1981) poklidaji za ideilni pro vybudovini agendy pro-
stfednictvirn zpravodajskych tydenikb, jakimi jsou Time
a Newsweek, rozsah EtyF rnlisick
Sance mddii na to, aby urtila agendu, samozfejml zBleZi take na dand
spoleEenskd situaci (napi, doba piedvolebhi kampaq4, ekonornicka kri-
ze, nebo obdobi dstu), na rnCdiu samotntm (jeho ddveryhodnost, veli-
kost publika apod.) a hejvice na recipientech (nap?, zda se urEitd othzka
jig staiqEi nestala soutdsti osobni agendy vlitSiho potetu recipientb).
V podstafli se zde daji pouZit nrkteri zjigtlinf z vyzkurnu li6inkB: media
neovlivriuji ddraz na problbrny u vSech respondent0 stejnyrn zpfisobem,
V zdvislosti na dand otizce rnbZe byt vliv mddii rnanSf Ei vi?tSi,pii6emZ
zde zhruba plati pravidlo: tim rnenSije prvotni zkuSenost recipienta, tirn
v5tSije potenciil vlivu media.
Funkhouser (1973) zkournal roli americkjch rnddii pii urtovani agendy
v obdobi let 1960-1970,Tato sekundBrnianalyza seopirala o [Ti soubory dat:
1, veiejnt rninlni (otizlta Gallupova pnizkurnu veiejniho rningni o tom,
kterj probltm je pro americky nirod nejdlfletitlijSf);
2,informovfini tiskem (poEet ElfinklS s urtityrni ttrnaty, je?. se objevova-
ly v tydenicich Time, Newsweek a US.World and News Report):
3, statistickd ukazatela ,,realityu o kliliovych otizkich Sedesdtyci~let (na-
p?, statistika zlotinnosti, kupni sfla dolaru, poEet jednotek vysiarlych
do Vietnamu atd,),
199
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Určenopouzeprostudijníúčely
Určenopouzeprostudijníúčely
Gerbner. G.(1967a)Mass communication and human communication theory. In
Dance, E E. X, (ed.)Human Communication Theory:Original Essays, Holt, Rinehart
aqd Winston,New York.
Ccrbner.C. (1967L)Thepress and thedialoguein education:acasestudyof anational
educational convention and its depiction in America's daily newspaperr.
]outnnlistn Mononnp}~,No. 5.
Could. J. snd KO]& ~L. (1964)A Dicfiorlar~jof the Social Sciences, The Free Press,
Ncw York.
Rapopnrt, A. (in press)A system-theoreticview of contentanalysis.In Gerbner,G.,
Holsti. 0.It., Krippendorff,R, Paisley, W J. and Stone,I(J. (eds)The Analysis oj
Cornal~nicotioriContent;Developments in Scientijc Theoriesand Computer 2~l1niq~es.
JohnWiley, New York.
The agenda-setting functioh of mass
media*
Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shnw
Prom Roshco, B. et al. (eds) (1972)The Prrblid Opiliiorl Qunt'terly, Vol. 36,
No. 2. Columbia University Press, New Yprk, pp. 176-87.
In choosingand displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters
play an important part in shaping political reality. Readers learn not only
about a given issue, but also how much importanc~to attach to that issue
from the amount ofinformation in a news story arid ils position.In reflecting
what candidates are saying during a campaign, the mass media may well
determine the important issues - that is, the media may set the 'agenda'
of the campaign.
The authors are associate professors of journalism at the University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
In our day,more than ever before,candidates gobefore the people through
the mass media rather than in person.l~heinformation in the mass media
becomes the only contact many have with politics. The pledges, promises,
and rhetoric encapsulated in news stories, columns, and editorials constit-
ute much of the information upon which a voting decision has to be made.
Most .of what people know comes to them 'second' or 'third' hand from
the mass media or from,other people.2
Although the evidence that mass media deeply change attitudes iv a
campaign is far from conclusive,3 the evidence is much stronger that voters
learn from the immense quantity of information available during each
campaign.4 People, of course, vary greatly in their attention to mass media
political information. Sqrne,normdly the better educated and most politically
interested (and those least likely to change political beliefs), actively seek
information; but most seem to acquire it, if at all, without much effort. It
just comes in. As Berelson succinctly puts it; 'On any single subject many
"hear" but few "listen" I.But Berelsonalso found that those wit11the greatest
mass fiedia exposure are most likely to h o w wheke the candidates stand
on different issuesV5~renamanand McQuail found the same thing in a study
af the 1959general election in England.6Voters do learn,
They apparently learn, furthermore, in direct prbportion to the
'This stydy was partially supported by a grant from the National Assoclation of
Broadcasters,Additional shpport was provided by the UNC Institute [or Research in Social
Science and the School of JournalismFoundation of North Carolina.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
emphasis placed on the campaign issues by the mass media. Specifically
focusing on the agenda-setting function of the media, Lang and Lang
obscrvc:
'The mass media force attention to certain issues.They build up public images
of political figures. They are constantly presenting objects suggesting what
individuals in the massshouldthink about,know about,have feelingsabout.'
I'erhaps this hypothesized agenda-setting function of the mass media is
most succinctly stated by Cohen, who noted that the press 'may not be
successfillmuch ofthe time in tellingpeoplewhat to think, but itisstunningly
successfulin tellingits readers what to think aboVt1.'While the mass media
may have little influence on the direction or intensity of attitudes, it is
hypolhesized that the mass media set the agenda for each politicalcampaign,
influencing the salience of attitudes toward the political issues.
Method
70 i~~vestigatcthe agenda-setting capacity of the mass media in the 1968
presidential campaign, thisstudy attempted to matchwhat ChapelHill voters
said were key issues of the campaign with the actual content of the mass
media used by them during the campaign. Respondents were selected
randomly from lists of registered voters in five Chapel Hill precincts
economically, socially, artd racially representative of the community. By
restricting this study to one community,numerous other sourcesof variation
- for example, regional differences or variations in media performance -
were controlled.
13etween 18 September and 6 October, 100 interviews were completed.
7b select these 100respondents a filter question was used to identify those
who had not yet definitely decided how to vote -presumably those most
open or stlsccptible to campaign information. Only those not yet fully
committed to 3 particularcandidate were interviewed. Borrowing from the
'Srcnamanand McQuailstrategy,this study asked each respondent to outlifie
the kcy issues as he saw them, regardless of what the candidates might be
saying at the Interviewers recorded the answers as exactly as
possible.
Concurrently with the voter interviews, the mass media serving these
voters were collected and content analysed. A pretest in spring 1968found
that for the Chapel Hill community almost all the mass media political
infc~rniationwas provided by the followingsources:Dur!utm MorrlingHerald,
D~rrlln!~~S i r ~ t ,Rnleish NL'WSatrd Observer, Raleigh Titnes, New York Times, Tinre,
Neros.zucek,and NBC and CBS evening news broadcasts,
'The answers ofrespondents regarding major problems as they saw them
and the news and editorialcomment appearing between 12September and
6October in the sampled newspapers, milgazines,and news broadcastswere
coded into 15 categories representihg the key issues and other kinds of
campaign news.'Media news content also was divided into 'major' and
'nlinor' levels to see whether there was any substantial differeqce in mass
media emphasisacross topics.10For the print media, this rnajorlminordivision
wac: in t e r m < n f qnarp and nncitinn. fnr 1 . ~ 1 ~ v i c i n nit. UISC m a d m in ~ P F - C n C
r r r r HA-#.- Y"...B.~ J ~ - . - - . - - ' - -J
position and time allowed. More specifically, rrlnjor items were defined as
folldws:
1.Television: any story 45 seconds or more in length and/or one of the
three lesd stories,
2. Newspapers: any story which appeared as the lead on the front page
or on any page under a three-column headline in which at least onc-
third of the story (a rr~inimumof five paragraphs) was devoted lo
political news coverage,
3, News magazines: any story more than one column or any item which
appearedin thelead at thebeginningof thenewssection of the magazine.
4. Editorial page coverageof newspapers and magazines:any item in the
lead editorial position (the top left corner of the editorial page) plus
all items in which one-third (at least five paragraphs) of an editorial
or columnist comment was devoted to p~liticalcampaign coverage.
Minor items are those stories which are political in nature and included in
the study but which are smallerin termsof space, time,or display than major
items.
Findings
The overall major item emphasis of the selected mass media on different
topics and candidates during the campaign is displayed in Table 19.1. It
indicates that a considefable amount of campaign news was not devoted
to discussionof the major political issuesbut rather toanalysisof tile cnmp~ipl
itself. This may give pause to those who thihk of campaign news as being
primarily about the issues.Thirty-fivepercent of the major news coverage
of Walla~ewascomposed of this analysis ('Has he a chance to win or not?').
For Humphrey and Nixon the figures were, respectively, 30 percent and
25 percent. At the same time, the table also shows the relative emphasis of
candidates speakingabout each other.For example,Agnew apparentlyspent
more tiine attackingHumphrey (22percent of the major news items about
Agnew) than did Nixon (11percent of the major news about Nixon).The
overall minor item emphasisofthe mass media on these politicalissuesand
topics closely paralleled that of major item emphasis,
'Ikble 19.2focuses on the relative emphasis of each party on the is sues,
as reflected in the mass media. Table 19.2 shows that HurnphreyMuskiu
emphasized foreign policy far more than did NixodAgnew or Wallace/
Lemay,In the caseof the'law and order' issue,however,over half theWallace/
1,ernay news was about this, while less than a~e-fourthof the Humphrey1
Muskie news concentrated upon this topic. With NixodAghew it was almost
a third -just behind the Republican emphasis on foreignpolicy.Humphrey
of course spent considerable time justifying (qr commenting upon) the
Vietnam War; Nixon did not choose (or have) to do this.
The media appear to have exerted a considerable impact on volers'
judgements of what they considered the major issuesof thc campaip (even
though the questionnaire specifically asked them to make judgements
without. .regard. . to what., politicians might be saying at the moment). 'The
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
7hbIe 19.1. Major mass media reports on candidates and issues, by cnndidqtci$ carried by the media and voters' independent judgen~entsof what wereI
Quotcd source the important issues was I-0.967. Between mirroritem emphasis on the main
I campaign issues and voters' judgements, the correlation was -t-0.979. In short,
Hum- the data suggest a very strong relationship between the emphasis placed
Nixon phrey Muskie Wallace Len1ay4 Total
Tlie issues
Foreign policy 7% 9% 13% 15% 2% - 10%
Law and order 5 13 4 r 12 - 6
Fiscal policy 3 4 2 - - - 2
P~~blicwelfare 3 4 (*lb 5 2 -Civil rights 3
2
9 * 0 4 -Other
2
19 13 14 25 II 15
The cqmpnign
Polls 1 - - - 1 - (*IP
Campaign events 18 9 21 10 25 - 19
Campaign analysis 25 17 30 30 35 - 28
Other candidates
Humphrey 11 22 - 5 . I - 5
Muskie - - - - - - ..
Nixon - - 11 5 3 - 5
-Agncw - (*lb - - -
Wallace 5 - (*lb
3 5 - -
Leniay 1 - 1 - 3
4
'Total percent 101%c 100% 99% 100% 100% -Total number 188 23
98%'
221 20 95 11558
of Lemay amounted to only 11major it.emsduring the 12septembe&
October period and are not individually included in the percentages; they are
included in the total column.It
Less than 0.05 percent.
'I2oes not sum to 100%because of rounding.
19.2, Mass media report on issues, by parHes
Republican Democratic American
NixonlAgnew Humphreyhluskie WaIIace/Lemay
Issues Major Minor Total Major Minor Total Major MinorTotal
F o r e i ~ ~ o l i c ~34% 40% 38% 65% 63% 64% 30% 21% 26%
Lnw and order 26 36 32 19 26 23 48 55 52
Fiscal policy 13 1 6 1 0 6 8 - - -
I'ublic welfare 13 14 13 4 3 4 7 12 10
Civil rights 15 8 11 2 2 2 14 12 13
'fi>t'1I
percentn 101% 99% 100% 100% 100% 101% 99% 100% 101%)
'htal
number 47 72 119 48 62 110 28 33 61
'Some cc)lltnlnsdo hot sum to 100% because of rounding.
on different campaign issues by the media (reflectingto a considerabledegree
the emphasisby candidates) and the judgements of voters as to the salience
and importance of various campaign t~pics.
But while the three presidential candidates placed widely different
emphasisupon different issues, the judgements df the voters seem to reflect
the colnpositeof the mass media coverage, This suggests that voters pay some
attention to all the political news regnrdless of whether it is from, or about,
any particular favoured candidate. Because the tables we have seen reflect
the composite of all the respondent$, it is possible that individual
differences, reflected in party preferences and in a predisposition to look
mainly at material favourable to one's own party, are lost by lumping all
the voters together in the analysis. Therefore, answers of respondents who
indicated a preference'(but not commitment) for one of the candidates during
the September-October period studied (45of the respondents; the others
were undecided) were analysed separately. Table 19.3shows the results of
this analysis for four selected media,
Table 19.3 shows the frequency of important issues cited by respondents
who favowedHumphrey, Nixon, or Wallacecorrelated (a)with the frequency
of all the major and minor issues carried by the media; and @) with the
frequency of the major and minor issues oriented to encll ,Wrfy (storieswith
a particular party or candidate as a primary referknt) carried by each of the
Table 19.3. Intercorrelationsof major and rnindr issue emphasisby selected media
with'voter issue emphasis
Major items Minor items
News awn Nel~sown
Selected media All news party All news . party
New York Tinies
Voters (D) 0.89 0.79 0.97 0.85
voters (R) 0.80 0,40 0.88 0.98
Voters (W) 0.89 0.25 0.78 -0.53
D~rrhantM o r i ~ i n ~Herqld
Voters (D) 0.84 0.74 0.95 0.83
Voters (R) 0.59 0.88 0.84 0.69
Voters (W) 0.82 0.76 0.79 0.00
CBS
Voters (D) 0.83 O.83 0.81 0.71
Voters (R) 0.50 0.00 0.57 0.40
Voters (W) 0.78 0.80 0.86 0.76
NBC
Voters (D) 0.57 0.76 0.64 0.73
Voters (R) 0.27 0.13 0.66 0.63
Voters (W) 0.84 0.21 0.48 -0.33
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
four media. For example, the correlation is 0.89 between what Democrats
see as the important issues and the New York Titnes' emphasis on the issues
in nll its major news items. The correlation is 0.79 between the Democrats'
emphasis on the issuesand the emphasis of the New York Titnes as reflected
orll!j in iterns about the Democratic candidates.
If one expected voters to pay more attention to the major and minor issues
oriunted to their own party - that is, to read or view selectively -the
correlations between the voters and news/opinion about their own party !should be strongest. This would be evidence of selective perception." If,
on the other hand, the votersattend reasonablywell toaN the news, regardless
of which candidate or party issue is sbessed, the correlations between the
votcr and total media content would be strongest. Thiswould be evidence
of the agenda-setting function. The crucial question is which set of
correlations is stronger.
In general. Table 19.3shows that voters who were not firmly committed
early in the campaign attended well to a11 the news. For major news items,
correlations were more often higher between voter judgements of
important issuesand the issues reflectedin all the news (includingof course
news about their favoured candidate/party) than were voter judgements
of issucs reflected in news onlyabout their candidatdparty. For minor news
items,again votersmoreoften correlated highest with the emphasis reflected
in all the news than with the emphasis reflected in news about a favoured
candidate.Consideringboth majorand minoritem coverage, 18of 24possible
comparisons show voters more in agreement with all the news rather than
with news only about their own patty/candidate preference. This finding
is better explained by the agenda-setting function of the mass media than
by selective perception.
Allhough the data reported in Table 19.3generally show high agreement
betwccn voter and media evaluati~nsof what the important issueswere in
1968, the correlationsare not uniform across the variousmedia and allgroups
ofvoters.The variationsacrossmedia are more clearlyreflected in Table 19.4,
which includes all survey respondents, not just those predisposed toward
a cnhdidateat the timeof the survey,There alsois a high degreeofconsensus
among the news media about the significantissues of the campaign,but again
i
lible 19.4. C~rreletionsof voter emphasis on issues with media coverage
1
Raleigh
New York Rnleigl~ News and
Ncrltiwcek Tinlc Times
ITimes Obscrvcr
Mgjor iterns 0.30 0.30 0.96 0,80 0.91
Minor items 0.53 0,78 0.97 0,73 0.93
Durltdnr I
Durhlm Mornii~g NBC CBS
Slrrl Herald News News
Major items O,82 0,94 0.89 0.63
Minor items 0,96 0.93 0.91 0.81
there is not perfect agreement. Consideri~gthe news media as mediators
between voters and the actual political arena, we might interpret the
correlations in Table 19.5 as reliability coefficients,tndiceting the extent of
agreement among the news media about what the important politicalevents
are. To the extent that the coefficients are less than perfect, the pseudo-
environment reflectedin the mass media isless than a perfect representation
of the actual 1968campaign.
Twosetsof factors,at kast, reducecorisensusamong the newsmedia. First,
the basiccharacteristicsof newspapers, television,and newsmagazineisdiffer.
Newspapers appear daily and have lots of space. Television is daily but has
a severe time constraint, News magazines appear weekly; news therefore
Cannot be as 'timely'. Table 19.5shows that the highest correlations tend to
be among like media; the lowest correlations, between differentmedia.
Second, news media do have a point of view, sometimes extreme biases.
However, the high correlations in Table 19.5(especiallyaraong like media)
suggestconsensuson news values, especiallyon major news items.Although
there is no explicit, commonly agreed-upon definition of news, there is a
professional norm regarding major news stories from day to day, These
major-story norms doubtless are greatly influenced today by widespread
use of the major wire services -especiallyby newspapers and television -
for much politicalinf~rmation.'~But as we move from major events of the
campaign, upon which nearly everyone agrees, there is more room for
individual interpretation, reflected in the lower correlatiohs for minor item
Table 19.5 Intercorrelationof mass media ~residentia!rteute coverage for major
and minor ilems -'n
Rnleigh Dlirllaal
Ncw Nnlrs b Mort!-
News- York Raleigh Ob- Purhant ir18
week Tinte Times Tittzes server S ~ t t Hrrald NBC CBS
Major items
Newsueek 0.54 0.92 0.79 0.81 0.79 0.68 0.42
Time 0.65 0.51 0.90 0.77 0.81 0.76 0.68 0.43
New York
Times
Rnleigh
Times 0.73 0,66 0,&\.85 0.89 0.5'0 0.72 0.62
Rnleigh
NLWSand
Observer 0.84 0.49 0.60 0.93 0.82 0.600,74
Dllrhnm Sun 0.77 0.47 0.47 0,70 0.80 94 0.91 0.77
Morning
Herald 0.89 0.68 0,68 0.80 0.93 0.73 0.89 0.76
N ~ CNews 0.81 0.65 0.38 0.87 0.73 0.84
0.82
CBSNews 0.66 0.60 0.83 0,88 0,79 0.76
Minor items \
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
agreement among media shown in Table 19.5. Since a newspaper, for
example, uses only about 15percent of the material available on any given
day, [hereis considerable latitude for selection among minor items.
In short, the political world isreproduced imperfectlyby individual new$ I
rncdia. Yet the evidence in this study that voters tend to share the media's
co~,rpositcdefinitionof what isimportant strongly suggests an agenda-setting
function of the mass media.
i
Discussion
The existence of an agenda-settingfunction of the mas$media,is not proved
by the correlations reported here, of course, but the evidence is in line with
the conditionsthat must existif agenda-settingby the mass media does occur,
This study has compared aggregate units -Chapel Hill voters as a group
compared to the aggregate performance of several mass media. This is
satisfactory as a first test of the agenda-settinghypothesis, but subsequent
research must move horn a broad societal level to thc socialpsychological
level,matching individual attitudeswith individual use of the mass ntedia,
Yet even the present study refines the evidence in several respects, Effotts
were made to match resportdent attitudes only with media actually used
by Chapcl Hill voters. Further, the analysis includes a juxtaposition of the
agenda-setting and selective perception hypotheses. Comparison of these
correlations too supports the agenda-setting hypothesis.
Interpreting the evidencefrom this studyasindicatingmass media influence
seemsmore plausible than alternativeexplanations. Any argument that the
currrlations between media and voter emphasis are spurious-that they are
simply responding to the same events and not influencing each other one
way or the other -assumes that voters have alterhative means of observing
the day-to-daychangesin the political arena.Thisassumptionis not plausible;
sincefew directly participate in presidential election campaigns, and fewer
still see presidential candidates in person, the inforhlation flowing in inter-
personal cornmutricationchannelsisprimarily relayed from, andbased upon,
mass media news coverage. The media are the major primary sources of
national political information; for most, pass media provide the best -and
only -easily availableapproximation ~f ever-changing political realities,
It might alsobe argued that the high correlationsindicate that the media
simply were successful in matching their messages to audience interests.
Yet since numerous studies indicate a sharp divergence between the news
values of professional journalists and their audiences, it would be
remarkable to find a near perfect fit in this one case.13It seems more likely
that the media have prevailed in this area of major coverage.
While this study is primarily a sociology of politics and mass commu-
nication, some psychological data were collected on each voter's personal
cognitiverepresentation of the issues.Shraugerhas suggested that thesdehctl
of the evaluative dimension -not the sheer number of attributes -is the
essential feature of cognitive differentiation.14 So a content analysis
classified respondents according to the salience of affect in their resporises
to opcn-ended questians about the candidates and issue^,'^ Some voters
described the issues and candidates in highly affective terms. Others were
much more matter-of-fact.Each respondent's answerswere classifiedby the
coders as 'all affect', 'affect dominant', 'some affect but not dominant,' or
'no affectat a11'.16 Regarding each voter's salience of affect as his cognitive
style ofstoring political information, the study hypothesized that cognitive
style also influences patterns of information-seeking.
Eschewingcausallanguage to discussthis relationship,thehypothesisstates
that salienceof affectwill index or locate differences in the communication
behaviour of voters. But a number of highly efficient locator variables for
voter communicationbehaviour already are well documented in the research
literature. Among these are level of formal education and interest in politics
generally. However, in terms of The Ajnericnn Voter's model of a 'funnel'
stretching across time, education and political interest are located soma
distance back from the particular campaign being considered.17Cognitive
style is located closer to the end of the funnel, closer to the time of actual
participation in a campaign. It also would seem to have the advantage of a
more functional relationship to voter behaviour,
Examination of the relationship between salienceofaffect and this pair of
traditional locators, education and political interest, showed no significant
correlations,Theindependenteffectsof political interest and salienceof affect
OQ media use aredeponstrated inTable19.6.Alsodempnsbqted is theefficacy
of salienceof affectas a locator or predictor of media use, especiallyamong
persons with high political interest.18
Both salience ofaffect and media use in Table 19.6are based on the issue
that respondents designated as the most important to them personally.
Salience of affect was coded from their discussion of why the issue was
important,Use of each communicayon medium isbased on whether or not
the respondent had seen or heard anything via that medium about that
particular issue in the past twenty-four hours.
Higksalience of Affect tends to block use of communication media to
acquire furthet information about issues with high personal importance.
At least, survey respondents with high salience of affect do not recall
acquiring recent information. This is true both for persons with low and
high political interest,but especiallyamong those with high political interest.
For example, among respondents with high political interest and high
salienceof affectonly36 percent reported reading anythingin the newspaper
recently about the issue they believed to be most important. But among high '
Table 19.6 Proportion of media users by political interest and salience of affect
Low political interest High political interest
High affect Low affect High affect Low affect
Media (N = 40) (N= 17) (N= 25) (N= 12)
*rv 15.0% 17.7% 20.00/n
41.7%
Newspapers 27.5 35.4 36,O 58.3
News magazines 7.5 11.8 24.0 33.3
11.8 8.0 33.3Radio 12.5
Talk 20.0 17,7 64.0 75.0
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
t
- -.
political interest respondents with low salience of affect nearly six of teh 0.and Freedman,JonathanL. (1967)Selectiveexposure to information:a crilical
(58.3percent) said they acquired information from the newspaper. Similar , review. Public Opipion Quarterly, Vol. 31, pp: 194-213.
patterns hold for all the communication media, 12, A number of studies have focused on the influence of the wire sarvices. For
IZuturcstudies of communication behaviour and political agenda setting example,see Gold, David and Simmons,JerryL.(1965)News selection patterns
must consider both psychological and sociological variables; knowledge of among Iowa dailies. Public Opinion Quarlcrly, Vol. 29, pp. 425-30; Sternpcl Ill,
both is crucial to establisl~mentof sound theoretical constructs. Considered Guido H. (1964)How newspapers use the Associated Press afternoon A-wire.
at both levels as a communication concept, agenda-setting seems useful for lonrnlisni Quarterly,Vol.41,pp.3804%; Casey,RalphD.and Copeland Jr,Thomas
H. (1958)Use of foreign news by 19Minnesota Dailies.lotlr~lnlisttrQrinrtcrl!/, VLII.
study of the process of political consensus. 35,pp. 87-9; Lewis, Howard L. (1960)?'he Cuban revolt stoq: AC UPI,and three
papers. Jorcrnalism Quprterly, Vol. 37, pp. 573-78; Van Horn, George A. (1952)
Analysis of AP news on trunk and Wisconsin state wires, lournalisrn Qlinrlerly,
Notes Vol. 29, pp. 426-32; and Cutlip, Scott M. (1954)Cohtent and flow of AP news -
frov trunk to TTS to reader.Jorrrnalisrn QJarterly, Vol. 31, pp. 434-46.
1. Sce I3erelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul E and McPhee,Wiam N. (1954)Votil~g, 13, Furthermore, five of the nine media studied here are national media and none
UniversityofChicagoPress, Chicago,p. 234. Of courseto somedegee candidates of the remaining four originate in Chapel Hill, It is easier to argue that Chapel
have always depended bpon the mass media, but radio and television brought Hill voters fit their judgements of issue salience to the Mass media than the
a new intimacy into politics. reverse. An interestingstudy which discusses the problems of trying to fitday-
2. Lnng, Kurt and Lang, Gladys Engel (1966) The mass media and voting, In to-day news judgements to reader interestisStempel 111,Cuido H. (2967)A factor
Rerelson, Bernard and Janowitz, Morris (eds) Reader-in Public Opinion and analyticstudy of reader interest in news.Journalisrn Quarterly, Vnl. 44,pp. 326-30.
Conrnitit~icntion,2nd edn, Free Press, New York, p. 466. An older study is Griffin,Philip E (1949)Readercomprehension of news stories:
3, Sec Uerelsonet ql,, o p ~cit.(NoteI), p. 223; Lazarsfeld, Paul E, Berelson, Bernard a preliminary study. ]ourrlalism Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 389-96.
and Gaudet, Hazel (1948)The People's Chpice, Columbia University Press, New 14. Shrauger, Sid (1967) Cognitive differentiation and the inipression-fnrmatii~n
York, p. xx; and Trenaman,Joseph and McQuail, Denis (1961)Televisionand Tl~e process.Journal of Personality, Vol. 35, pp. 402-14.
lJoliticallnrlzge,Methuen, London, pp. 147, 191. 15. Affect denotes a 'prolcon' orientation, a feelingof liking or disliking something.
4. See Cohen, Bernard C. (1963)TlfePrcss and Foreigrl Policy, Princeton University Cognition,by contrast,denotesthe individual's perception ofthe attitude object,
Press, Princeton, p. 120. his 'image' or organized set of information and beliefs about a political object.
5. nerelson d al., op. cit. (Note I), pp. 244,228. 16. Coder reliability exceeded 0.90.
6. Trenaman and McQuail, ~ p .cit, (Note 3), p, 165. 17. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, warren and Stokes, Donald (1960)
7. Lang and Lang,op. cit. (Note2), p. 468,Trenaman and McQuail warn that there TheAmerican Voter, JohnWfley, New York, Chapter 2.
was little evidence in their study that television (or any other mass medium) 18. No statisticalanalysisisreported for the fiveseparate three-wayanalysisin Table
did anythingother thanpfovideinformation there was littleor noattitudechange 19.6.-because of small Ns irl some cells, but despite these small Ns the pattern
on sipificant issues.'People are aware of what isbeing said, and who is saying ofies'iilts is consistent across all media.
it, but they do not necessarily take it at face valuei, see op. cit. (Note 3), p, 168.
In a morerecent study, however,Blumlerand McQuallfound that high exposure
to liberal party television broadcasts in the British general electionof 1964was 1
positivelyrelated to a more favourableattitude toward the Liberalparty for tttose
with medium or weak motivation to follow the campaign. The more strongly
motivated were much more stable in politicalattitude, See Blumler,Jay C,and
McQuail, Denis (1969)Television ia Politics: Its Uses and Influence,University of 1
Chicago Press, Chicago,p. 200.
8. Cohen, op. cit, (Note 4), p. 13.
9. See Trenaman and McQuail, op. cit. (Note 6))p. 172.The survey question was: I
'What are you most concerned about these days? That is, regardless of what
politicians say, what are the two or three main things which you think the !
government should c~ncentrateon doing something about?',
10. Intercoder reliability was above 0.90 for content analysis of both 'major' and
'minor' items. Details of categorization are described in the full report of this
project. A small number of copies of the full report is available for distribution
and may be obtained by writing the authors.
I
I
11. While recent reviews of the literature and new experiments have questioned 1
the validity of~theselective perception hypothesis, this has nevertheless been
the focus of much communication research, For example, see Carter, Richard
F,,Pyszka, Rohald H, and Guerrero, JoseL. (1969)Dissonance and exposure to
I
arousive information, Iournalism Qunrterly, Vol. 46, pp. 37-42; and Sears, David I
I
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
- -
rLtlOUNT01:COVERAGE GIVEN BY N.YTIONAL NEWS MAGAZINES TO
VARIOUS ISSUES DUKING THE 1960~,AND RXNK SCORES OF THE KSGES
AS "A~OSTIMPORTANT PROBLE.\I FACING A\LEKICA'' DURING THATI'ERIOD
52 I1
wimcii*s n~hrs 47 12
kitncr md sociery 37 13
Pagulacion 36 14
Lnk-order corrclaric '
- c-------- ---' n n c items r c r c ncvcr norcd r, "rhc mob1 irnp~rlxncproblcm'
c.1u~llyklow the itc '
I....".c D 1- .-
-'11 bctwccn covcrxgc and imwnlncr = 7~ (p = .cK)~)-
.In- thc G-rllup findr~i~s.$0 rhrv a*- .--I--J
In, [ha d~d.
.....
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely