"there is no point to the house of lords - they are unelected and just use up our taxes. their only power is to delay bills by one year".

That completely misunderstands the House of Lords.  The cost to the public purse of a member of the House in the 2006-07 session was less than one-sixth the cost of an MP.  The House is extremely efficient and delivers significant outputs at relatively little cost. 

The impact of the House is seen in different ways.  The main one in respect of legislation is not delaying a Bill for a year - it rarely does that - but rather in achieving amendments to Bills.  Each year, between 2,000 and 4,000 amendments to Government Bills are secured the House of Lords, all bar a few by agreement: that is, the Government accepts that they improve a measure.  As a result, they are also acceptable to the House of Commons.  In so far as it is possible to calculate the difference, it has been estimated that the House of Lords makes twice the difference to legislation as that made by the House of Commons.

The House fulfils a range of other functions.  It scrutinises the actions and policy of government, as well as of the European Union.  Each week, through sub-committees of the EU Committee, more than seventy members of the House are engaged in scrutiny of EU proposals.  Other committees cover a range of important topics (including the constitution, economic affairs, communications, and science and technology).  The experience and expertise of the House enables the task to be fulfilled to effect.

The House fulfils a significant agenda-setting role.  Peers can raise issues through a variety of means (balloted debates, questions for short debate, Question Time). The issues may be important to particular sections of society but not have been raised before.  They may be on matters that enjoy little popularity, but deserve discussion.  Peers may return to the issues and, in time, the case for legislative change may be recognised by the House and by Government. 

The list is illustrative rather than exhaustive.  The composition of the House enables it look at issues from a different perspective to that of MPs.  As such, it does not duplicate the elected chamber but rather complements its activities.  In the past, the House has tended to hide its light under a bushel.  Now, there is a recognition that it should go out and explain what it is doing.  This blog is part of that activity.  So is the 'Peers in Schools' initiative.  We are keen to engage and explain.  I think we have something notably worthwhile to convey.

Abstract: This research project looks at the concept of influence within social marketing as compared to journalism and advertising. This includes examining these professions’ definitions, ethics, standards, and agenda-setting capabilities. Through in-depth interviews, a further understanding of how these three practices relate within the gray matter of the media landscape is pioneered, as well as better defining the role and influence of social marketing.

Excerpt:

The Question of Influence

While the Information Age leaps into the Connected Age, the power of a free press is offered daily to start-up bloggers. Newspapers are downsizing. Amateurism is becoming the new professionalism. Online media producers replace today’s broadcast directors; all making the gray shades of influence between the information and its consumers a thunderstorm waiting to happen. Social marketing is in the business of change, whether it is behavioral change or attitude change, social marketing can also be described as the field for social change. But, how? In today’s world, who holds more influence to create these changes, a journalist, advertiser or a social marketer? How can one tell the difference? Is there a difference? And, do the professions work together? Could they? Should they? This research hopes to add to the discussion on the evolving definition and role of social marketing, using agenda-setting relationships to examine its influence and attempt to determine its position between advertising and journalism in the media landscape.

Literature Review

It is 1961. A time when questions were raised and hope diminishing as borders became gray and a rise of an international community emerged. Two Portuguese students were imprisoned for declaring a public toast towards their dream, rooted in an idea – freedom. Having their freedom stolen from them for displaying a human right of expression, a newspaper article was written, and with it, a movement spurred. This movement would form Amnesty International (www.amnesty.org). Social change is possible, and it begins with an idea. Social marketing is an increasing movement currently being expanded because of its foundation in ideas about positive change for the welfare of the public.

Though specific definitions differ, social marketing achieves social change objectives by applying the marketing mix of product, place, promotion and price. Currently, social marketing is used mostly in public health communications and is expanding in the realms of environmentalism, civil rights, urban renewal, public service and raising awareness of international issues.

Conclusion: The conclusion of course I can't share here, but it involves what I found consistent between journalism and advertising, but interestingly, the field of public policy was drawn into the mix through the research as well.

Liked what you read? Feel free to share with others:

However, what was most interesting yesterday was the response to two questions I put to the students.  I mentioned a range of issues on which people have decided views, including the voting age.  I asked if they supported the lowering of the voting age to 16.  They were overwhelmingly against it.  Only three, out of approximately forty, students voted for it.  I have known other post-16 groups where there has been a majority against lowering the age, but not quite on such an overwhelming scale. 

Later, in discussing the agenda-setting role of the House, I mentioned some issues brought on to the agenda by individual peers.  I offered as a recent example Lord Joffe's Assisted Dying Bill, designed to enable someone who is terminally ill and in chronic pain to be assisted if they have a clear wish to die.  (The issue is again topical because of a current court case.)  The students were overwhelmingly in favour of the principle of assisted dying.  Only three or four people voted against.  I wasn't sure what the vote would be, but the scale of support was remarkable.

Participants:
Former Secretaries of the States. Collin Powell, Madeleine Albright and three others.

Issues: Genocide in Darfur - Should the US intervene.

China is selling weapons to the government of Sudan, in turn the Sudanese government is using the “Chinese” weapons to “kill” the anti-government/rebels, leading to a genocide in the matter of five years. (This was also one of the reasons why they and the human rights organizations like RTI and RSF wanted other nations to boycott the Beijing Olympics.)

The show ends with most of them agreeing that the US should do something about Darfur crisis.

-----

Surprisingly, the real reasons of the conflict in Darfur were not discussed even once during the whole show.

A classic example of how mainstream media limits the issue of discussion, how it narrows the range of discourse; how mainstream media successfully engages people in a so called “active debate” but always manages to limit the discourse within that “range”.

The participants constantly belabored about “genocide”, “human rights” and “crisis” – they even debated, sometimes putting opposing opinions. But never once did they talk about the reasons of the conflict.

This phenomenon has been explained best by the renowned media critic - Noam Chomsky:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views.

That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

They indulged in a highly active discussion - critical and analytical. Freedom of Expression. Right to Information. Set the agenda. Everything seemed highly democratic. But through out the whole period, they did not even address the other side.. the real side.. the "real reality".

All done with purpose.

-----

The reason of conflict in Darfur is the same one as is in Iraq, Georgia, Nigeria and Bolivia. It’s very simple to understand.

It’s the OIL. *

And everything else is just a sham show of biblical proportion. They don't care about the people dying over there. They never have.

Darfur is special because the Sudanese government decided to do business with the Chinese government instead of the US. China buys oil from Sudan and pays back by supplying weapons. The US government is simply pissed that it has not been able to control Darfur’s oil – and to add insult to injury – it is miserably aggravated that Sudan is buying weapons from its archenemy China.

As a result, the US blames China for the genocide because it’s the Chinese weapons that are killing the rebels in Sudan. They show images/visuals of tanks rovering on the Sudanese streets and they declare – “Those tanks are definitely Chinese made.”

Amusing!

Weapons don’t kill.

Sudan could have bought the weapons – guns, ammunitions, bombs, tanks – from the so called neutral countries - Sweden or Norway or the US itself. There would still be insurgency and violence and genocide in Darfur.

Do they want to prove – that Chinese Tanks can kill more people than the Swedish Tanks? That Chinese ammunitions are more fatal than Norwegian’s? That American guns don’t kill people? **

How amusing!

Do the “majority” of general Americans know this? Or, do they even care about this?

CNN and other mainstream US media will keep on saying there’s genocide in Darfur and that the US should intervene to keep the world safer from human rights violators. The clever one (Obama/McCain) will pledge the Americans “to end this injustice in Darfur in the name of God” and probably win the November’s Presidential election too.

Awaiting for the world-class charade on the mainstream media of the greatest country of the world!

-----

* WE WANT YOUR OIL - Asian Dub Foundation

Smart bomb with more brains than the President
Blipping and bleeping as they target residents
Of market squares and hospital wards
King rat is safe in the wings of the hawk

A secret never to be told always to be sold
Digging out the Black gold
We want your oil

Petro junkies must be fed
Going Barefoot in the head
It's S.U.V's with warheads
We want your oil

Tearing up formalities there is no neutrality
Welcome to reality
We want your oil

Ignore treates line by line
Litte countries fall behind
The lunatics will lead the blind
We want your oil

** Quite interestingly, they have in fact, belittled the Chinese guns. Watch the Batman movie “Dark Knight”.

L'Agenda-building est l'étape initiale du processus d'Agenda-Setting. C'est une des étapes les plus rarement étudiées selon Scheufele (ibid.). L'intérêt se porte sur la façon dont les questions sont créées. À savoir : comment certains problèmes arrivent à l'attention des décideurs tandis que d'autres restent dans l'ombre ? À travers leur modèle, Rogers et Dearing (1987) ont tenté de répondre partiellement à cette question, mais il reste que de nombreux facteurs interviennent dans l'agenda building. La seule chose que l'on puisse dire, c'est qu'en dernier recours seuls les reporters, les éditorialistes, etc. décident quelles informations mettre à la Une (Tuchman, 1978). Malgré tout, de nombreux chercheurs considèrent que les médias ne font que reproduire les idéologies dominantes (Hall, Critcher, Jefferson, Clarke & Roberts, 1978) ou sont au carrefour d'intérêts économiques et politiques (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). A titre d'exemple, de Vreese (2001) considèrent que deux types de facteur influent sur l'élaboration des informations électorales : des facteurs externes et des facteurs internes aux organisations de presse. « A l'extérieur, les caractéristiques du marché, la législation sur la radiodiffusion et le climat politique influenceraient la production d'informations. Intérieurement, les routines organisationnelles, les prises de décision éditoriales et les perceptions des journalistes et des cadres sur leur rôle ont été identifiées comme d'importantes variables influençant le contenu » (de Vreese, 2001, p.159) auxquels s'ajoutent, selon de Vreese (ibid.), l'approche éditoriale par rapport aux élections et l'agenda politique.

Concernant l'approche éditoriale, de Vreese introduit une distinction théorique entre une approche dite sacerdotale et une approche dite pragmatique qui repose sur le statut accordé à la campagne électorale par les journalistes. Dans l'approche sacerdotale, ces derniers conçoivent les élections comme représentatives de la démocratie et accordent donc une priorité aux informations électorales. Au contraire, dans l'approche pragmatique, les élections ne sont qu'une information potentielle parmi d'autres. Leur traitement sera le fruit d'une concurrence avec d'autres informations dignes d'intérêt.

L'amorçage est parfaitement illustré dans la recherche menée par Iyengar et Kinder (1987) sur la perception des hommes politiques. Ils ont étudié comment le traitement médiatique de l'Irangate[1] a influé sur les évaluations du public envers les performances du Président Reagan. Leurs résultats confirmèrent amplement leurs attentes. Récemment, Kuhn (2005) a étudié la couverture médiatique démesurée de l'insécurité les semaines précédant les élections présidentielles de 2002. Il juge que l'insécurité a pu être un critère décisif dans le jugement fait par les électeurs indécis à propos des candidats. Kiousis, Bantimaroudis et Ban (1999) se sont intéressés à la façon dont les médias relayaient les traits de candidats politiques. Ils ont vérifié que les portraits ainsi proposés influence la perception du public et ont observé, de surcroît, une influence sur la perception affective de ces candidats par le public.

Références bibliographiques :

de Vreese, C. H. (2001). Election Coverage - New Directions for Public Broadcasting: The Netherlands and Beyond. European Journal of Communication, 16(2), 155-180.

Hall, S. C., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. London: MacMillan.

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.

Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, R. (2005). 'Be Very Afraid': Television and l'Insecurite in the 2002 French Presidential Election. European Journal of Communication, 20(2), 181-198.

Rogers, E., & Dearing, J. (1987). Agenda-setting research: where has it been, where is it going? Communication Yearbook, 11, 555-594.

Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2&3), 297-316.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making News: A study in the construction of reality. New York: The Free Press.

[1] Entre 1985 et 1986, des ventes secrètes d'armes à l'Iran effectuées par les Etats-Unis ont financé en grande partie les Contras (guérilleros anticommuniste) nicaraguayens.  L'Iran était pourtant l'un des ennemis des Etats-Unis.

]]> http://socialdisabled.wordpress.com/?p=76 Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:56:39 +0000 arnofouquet http://socialdisabled.pt-br.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/sciences-politiques-et-recherches-sur-les-medias/ Les relations entre les recherches en sciences politiques et celles sur les médias ne sont pas nouvelles puisque, par exemple, Lazarsfeld (Lazarsfeld, Berleson & Gaudet, 1948) s'intéressait déjà aux comportements électoraux et au rôle joué par les médias.

De Vreese (2001) constate que la majorité des recherches qui se sont intéressées au rôle joué  dans les campagnes électorales par les médias peuvent être réparties en deux approches. La première a pour objet les effets des contenus des médias sur le sujet (attitudes, perception des candidats, intentions électorales) et la seconde se centre sur les facteurs intervenant dans le façonnement des informations (routines éditoriales, rôle des organisations et perceptions de rôle). Cette dernière approche n'aurait connu que peu d'intérêts en dehors de la Grande-Bretagne. La réticence des journalistes et des politiciens à ce que l'on s'intéresse à leurs dessous et interactions est une des raisons invoquées à ce désistement.

C'est à ce carrefour entre sciences politiques et psychosociologie des médias que s'inscrivent les travaux portant sur le rôle d'agenda setting des médias. Selon la théorie de l'Agenda Setting, le pouvoir de la presse consiste à concentrer l'attention du public sur quelques thèmes clés et, se faisant, de détourner son attention d'autres thèmes.

L'étude empirique princeps de McCombs et Shaw (1972) avait pour but de mesurer la relation entre la couverture de l'élection présidentielle américaine de 1968 dans les actualités et les thèmes clés perçus comme importants par le public. Les chercheurs observèrent une corrélation quasi parfaite entre les thèmes considérés comme important par 100 électeurs indécis et ceux ressortant d'une analyse de contenu de différents mass médias. McCombs et Shaw (ibid. ) conclurent que la focalisation de la presse sur certains thèmes avait amené son public à les considérer comme plus importants que d'autres. D'autres études menées sur les élections présidentielles de 1972 et 1976 (Shaw & McCombs, 1977 ; Weaver, Graber, McCombs & Eyal, 1981) permirent de répliquer et d'affiner ces premiers résultats. Par la suite, ce champ théorique a connu un essor et les recherches ultérieures ont pris de multiples formes (McCombs & Shaw, 1993).

Le transfert de saillance thématique est considéré comme un premier type d'effets. Récemment, McCombs (2002) a précisé certains aspects de la théorie de l'Agenda-Setting et a développé les conceptions théoriques sur un second type d'effets : le cadrage (framing) et l'amorçage (priming).

Par le premier processus, les médias vont présenter un problème donné en mettant en avant certaines données (attributs) de ce problème et en laissant dans l'ombre certaines autres. Par le traitement ainsi infligé à l'information, l'interprétation du public est dirigée dans le sens désiré par les médias. Il ne s'agit plus d'attirer l'attention du public sur certains problèmes particuliers, mais d'influencer les opinions du public sur ce problème.

Les différents processus susnommés n'ont pas les mêmes bases théoriques (Scheufele, 2000). Les effets d'agenda et d'amorçage trouvent leur base théorique au sein de la psychologie cognitive. Plus précisément, Scheufele s'appuie sur le fait que les mass médias en influençant la saillance de certaines questions facilitent leur accessibilité en mémoire. Par conséquent, cette facilité d'accès va, à son tour, influencer la façon dont les gens perçoivent, par exemple, les hommes politiques. Afin d'étayer cette hypothèse, McCombs (2002) fait référence aux heuristiques de raisonnement développées particulièrement par les recherches de Kahneman & Tversky (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973, 1982 ; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).  Le public, note McCombs (2002), est soumis à une quantité d'informations importantes. Par conséquent, il ne peut porter son attention sur toutes ; au lieu de procéder à leur examen approfondi, il base alors son jugement sur tel ou tel problème à partir des bribes d'informations apparaissant comme saillantes dans les médias. Notons que les mêmes heuristiques transparaissent lors de la rédaction des articles par les journalistes (Marchand, 2004).

A contrario, le cadrage doit être rapproché de la théorie des processus d'attribution étudiés par Heider (1944, 1958). Scheufele (2000) fait référence à la conception selon laquelle chaque individu essaye de donner sens aux évènements se déroulant dans son environnement. Pour cela, les individus utilisent des schèmes d'interprétation ou cadre de références. Les mass médias interviendraient dans la formation de ces cadres de référence.

A suivre...

Bibliographie :

de Vreese, C. H. (2001). Election Coverage - New Directions for Public Broadcasting: The Netherlands and Beyond. European Journal of Communication, 16(2), 155-180.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychology Review, 80, 237-251.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. Dans D. Kahneman, Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Éd.), Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201-208). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people's choice. (2^e éd.). New York: Columbia University Press. 1ère édition 1944.

Marchand, P. (2004). Psychologie sociale des médias. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

McCombs, M. (2002, June). Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media in the Shaping of Public Opinion. Communication présentée Mass Media Economics 2002, London, G-B.

McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58-67.

Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2&3), 297-316.

Shaw, D. L., & McCombs, M. (1977). The Emergence of American Political Issues. St Paul: West Publishing.

Weaver, D., Graber, D.A., McCombs, M.E., & Eyal, C. H. (1981). Media agenda setting in a presidential election: Issues, images and interest. New York: Praeger.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1130.

There is a real war on, people! A war that, granted, most of us rarely think about except when it makes a convenient political metaphor, sure, but a war nonetheless. And not just a real war, but possibly the return of a cold one, too, and as much as it sounds kinda sexy in theory to those of us born after 1980, it's probably not. And then there is all that stuff about the economy, and I think I heard something about a little problem called climate change, and, okay, let’s face it, we are all totally screwed, in just about every way possible, so it’s just kind of all-encompassingly infuriating to see the McCain camp trotting out an ad accusing Barack Obama of wanting to teach sex-ed to kindergarteners, an ad so deliriously over-the-top one could only pray, if one were the sort that prayed, that this is really just satire, that this is really just pastiche of a 2004 campaign ad, because haven’t we moved past this, isn’t that what both candidates keep saying?

Only Obama keeps saying it and his campaign (for the most part) follows suit; McCain keeps saying it while his campaign does the exact opposite and hopes he can pull a pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain. And it’s ludicrous, and I don’t care if this isn’t the campaign McCain wants to run, if McCain is personally better than this, if it’s all just the Roveian puppet-masters insisting, because at some point it does not matter. Even if it is true (and I’m skeptical), it does not matter any more.

......................................................................................

Buna ziua,

Ca urmare a datelor de contact furnizate de dvs. cu ocazia participarii la una din intalnirile tematice din luna iulie 2008, (pe domeniul cultura, educatie, social, economic, infrastructura, turism, spatiu locativ sau administratie publica) sau a intalnirii din 31 iulie organizate de catre Municipiul Sighisoara in colaborare cu firma de consultanta Agenda Setting am inregistrat adresa dvs. de email pe grupul de discutii strategie_sighisoara_2008_2013@yahoogroups.com.

Rolul acestui grup de discutii este acela de a continua si dezvolta ideile lansate cu ocazia intalnirilor desfasurate in cadrul procesul de elaborare a Strategiei de dezvoltare socio – economica a municipiului Sighisoara pentru perioada 2008-2013.

In sectiunea de fisiere de pe grupul de discutii gasiti cadrul in care se desfasoara procesul de elaborare a strategiei de dezvoltare a municipiului Sighisoara, documentele intocmite in cadrul intalnirilor de lucru pe domenii, idei si fise de proiecte, respectiv regulamentul grupului de discutii.

Am atasat acestui mail toate documentele postate pe grupul de discutii, deoarece accesarea fisierelor direct pe grupul de discutii se poate face doar in cazul in care dispuneti de o adresa valida de forma: ....@yahoo.com.

Va invitam sa parcurgeti materialele postate si sa veniti cu completari, observatii, comentarii.

In cazul in care doriti sa transmiteti observatiile, materialele sau completarile Dvs. numai echipei Agenda Setting pentru prelucrare ºi analiza, va rugam folositi adresa office@ages.ro; daca doriti sa le trimiteti intregului grup, folositi adresa strategie_sighisoara_2008_2013@yahoogroups.com

Va rugam sa invitati la acest grup si alte persoane sau reprezentanti de institutii care nu se afla pe lista de discutii, dar ar fi interesate sa participe la discutii.

Va multumim,
Echipa Agenda Setting

Durante i vari tentativi di spallata al governo Prodi, fatti di tentativi di corruzione, mogli di senatori assunte dal nano e amiche veline (per usare un eufemismo) assunte nelle televisioni pubbliche che noi paghiamo con il canone, bene in tutto questo periodo due cose tenevano banco: gli immigrati clandestini che ammazzavano a manca e a destra, che spadroneggiavano in un paese senza legge e ordine, che entravano illegalmente in massa nel nostro paese e rimanevano impuniti nonostante i vari reati di cui si macchiavano, e la vicenda rifiuti. Cumuli di spazzatura sulle strade campane (roccaforte del centrosinistra) e un’amministrazione incompetente e incapace di raccogliere la monnezza dalla strada. Tutte le televisioni ne parlavano. Entrambi questi problemi erano l’indice e la prova evidente dell’incompetenza di governo del centrosinistra. L’opinione pubblica (alla faccia di chi ritiene che i mass media, ed in particolare la televisione, non sortiscano effetti sui tele-cittadini) era impressionata (come i vari sondaggi dell’obiettivo Mannheimer dimostravano): governo incapace e da mandare a casa. Governo, poi, severamente punito alle elezioni.

Parlando con gli anziani del mio paese (che credono non abbiamo mai conosciuto un rumeno in vita propria, se non quella santa che fa la badante a Ziu Antoni, dell’anno 1913, il più anziano del paese), mi sono reso conto di quanta paura nutrissero nei confronti dei rumeni, visti quasi come demoni assassini. Mi chiedo e vi chiedo: chi gli ha insegnato ad odiarli? Chi, se non la televisioni, per fini propagandistici. Chi ha insegnato agli statunitensi ad odiare i tedeschi durante le due guerre, e poi ad odiare i giapponesi, e poi i coreani (negli anni cinquanta) e gli sporchi musi gialli, e poi gli iracheni, poi gli afgani, e poi ancora gli iracheni e tra un po’ gli iraniani? Chi se non la televisione. Questa maledetta televisione che ci ha insegnato ad odiare rumeni e rom, maghrebini e albanesi: ci ha insegnato ad odiare gli immigrati, noi terra di emigrati. Hanno vinto le elezioni facendo leva su queste paure ed ora governano, prigionieri delle loro stesse paure: militarizzazione del territorio, impronte digitali (come le leggi razziali del 1938) ai bambini rom. Il problema immigrazione comincia a sparire dalla TV e perciò a non esistere: la popolazione è più tranquilla perché il problema che la televisione avevano creato ora è stato risolto, semplicemente perché la televisione ha cominciato a non parlarne: questo genere di allarme sociale viva, prospera e muore dentro il tubo catodico: se ne parla l’allarme esiste, se non ne parla il problema non sussiste.

Allora è meglio parlare del caldo, della velina che tromba con il forte centravanti della nazionale o di qualche giallo d’estate. E poi c’è la monnezza. Stessa soluzione: primo passo è dire che il problema è stato risolto e poi farlo scomparire dai palinsesti televisivi. Non vedendolo più in televisione si tenderà a credere che il problema sia stato risolto. Scompare dalla televisione e scompare dalla vita dei cittadini. Semplice no. È facile governare quando le tue televisioni creano i problemi quando sei all’opposizione e dicono che i problemi sono risolti quando sei al governo. Facile vero? È l’epoca berlusconiana, ragazzi.

Senza giri di parole gli ho chiesto: Visto che lei è più grande di me, magari mi saprà dire se anche quando lei era giovane d’estate faceva caldo. La sua risposta è stata chiarissima: d’estate ha sempre fatto caldo. Incredibile. È uno scoop. Ma se d’estate ha sempre fatto caldo (almeno da novant’anni a questa parte) dove sta la notizia?

Beh, forse la vera notizia è che i nostri telegiornali sono pieni di non notizie: ci parlano del clima perché come dice Bourdieu è uno di quei argomenti sui quali non si può essere d’accordo. Tutti a lamentarsi del caldo, quando sino a qualche giorno fa ci si lamentava che il caldo non era ancora arrivato.

Quello che la televisione, e i vecchi media in generale, stanno facendo è quello di spostare l’attenzione dai problemi veri e farci riflettere sul caldo d’estate (ricordatevi di bere acqua, evitare di uscire nelle ore più calde e mangiare meno grassi), sul matrimonio tra un ricco uomo d’affari e una giovane ragazza o delle ultime tendenze. Questo fa notizia. Il resto è scomparso da tempo dai nostri schermi. E in fin dei conti, anche dal nostro mondo cognitivo.

    No Brasil, o gráfico de crescimento de aparelhos televisivos parece nunca cair. Mas o que aparece como contra-senso nessa questão, é que normalmente isto aponta para certo tipo de desenvolvimento e crescimento. Quanto ao segundo tudo bem, porém, a respeito do desenvolvimento, o que acontece – como o autor explica no texto – é exatamente o contrário “... a importância da televisão numa sociedade, atualmente, é diretamente proporcional às taxas de analfabetismo e subdesenvolvimento”.

    A TV, dentro do Brasil, foi o principal meio que conseguiu unificar o país, porém se valendo de uma falsa unificação, ao nos depararmos com o real. Conseguiu fazer, através de ufanismos e patriotismos, o que parecia impossível: unir um país com uma das maiores desigualdades sociais do planeta. E este é o modelo que foi colocado em vigor junto à época da ditadura e, com o fim da mesma, a TV ganha o poder político do país. Não tão esdrúxulo desta forma, mas ela ganha o poder de eleger, o que é claramente visto na maneira como agiu ante as eleições presidenciais de 1984 e 1989. Falando da REDE GLOBO, uma das maiores emissoras privadas do mundo. Líder em nosso país, supera em mais de duas vezes a sua concorrente mais próxima, o SBT. “A Globo não é a única, mas é a perfeita expressão do modelo gerado pelo autoritarismo, e é também a prova de que ele deu certo.”

    Enquanto no resto do mundo, a influência da TV tende a definhar, no Brasil, ocorre de forma mais lenta, pois TV e política aqui andam lado a lado, e sabe-se que a segunda não caminha através de rupturas, logo, a primeira, caminhará da mesma forma em direção a pluralização da informação. Como no passado a ditadura precisou da TV para se afirmar, hoje a TV precisa da ditadura para conseguir ganhar seu público e, matematicamente, como a ditadura se mantinha através de ufanismos e patriotismos, a TV brasileira continua se apoiando nisso. “ Somos brasileiros e não desistimos nunca”. O mais forte nessa questão é que a TV criada na ditadura sobreviveu à morte da mesma e, reinventada, ganhou mais poder e maior influência. Mesmo valendo-se de leis – como o parágrafo 5° do Artigo 220: “Os meios de comunicação não podem, direta ou indiretamente, ser objeto de monopólio ou oligopólio”- o poder continuou concentrado. “Foi a ausência da crítica e do debate (a ausência das liberdades democráticas) que proporcionou a exuberância da TV brasileira.”

    Com o enorme poder que é dado à TV no Brasil, ela é capaz de incluir ou excluir algo da agenda do país – campanha pelo impeachment de 92 – e, com isso, acaba dominando totalmente o espaço público brasileiro. Deixando às escuras assuntos que remetam à própria TV. Teriam que nascer normas éticas que lutassem contra a desinformação e a propaganda enganosa. “A idéia de fazer a TV noticiar e debater a TV ilustra, em parte, o que seria subordiná-la a um espaço público mais eficaz do que ela própria.” Vejam o programa de TV da rede Bandeirantes: CQC.

    O autor defende muito em seu texto, que ignorar a TV é querer tapar os olhos para a realidade de nosso país. Ela está super inserida em nossas vidas e integra o país de certa forma. Então temos que olhar para ela com certo distanciamento para podermos melhor entender as nossas influências. Bucci diz que desde criança somos condicionados a não conversar sobre a TV, não discutir sobre a TV e, conseqüentemente, acabar não criticando a TV e deixar o seu poder exercer mais forte. Deveria se falar sobre TV com as crianças, para orientá-las desde cedo sobre os efeitos da televisão. “... discutir a TV brasileira condiz à discussão da nossa própria realidade”.

    Constantes do funcionamento da TV no Brasil:

. Telejornalismo se organiza como melodrama. Trata a notícia como mercadoria a ser desejada. Esquema de entreter o telespectador como na ficção. A notícia vira espetáculo no telejornal. Happy-end.

.  Novelas precisam propor uma síntese do Brasil. Apesar das novelas das 6 e das 7 às vezes – poucas – acabar experimentando, a das 8 é obrigada a trazer ao público “uma reelaboração estética do próprio país e de suas tensões presentes”.

. A Televisão reproduz a exclusão social e o preconceito de classe à medida que integra. Ao mostrar o Brasil, ela falsifica o Brasil e, portanto, esconde o Brasil. Os comícios de 1984, na campanha das Diretas, não apareciam na televisão, mas agora compõe a memória dos programas jornalísticos como história. Minorias também são afastadas das imagens televisivas, quando aparecem, são para alimentar mais ainda o preconceito. (Negros e pardos nas reportagens policiais)

. A TV depende da concorrência regular de eventos que tenham a pátria por objeto. Eventos esportivos, datas religiosas, campeonatos internacionais. “O veículo se alimenta de fazer a audiência vibrar unida – sem isso, definha.”

. Necessidade de transgredir os próprios limites. A TV tende a conhecer novos espaços, pois antigos espaços são estéreis. Se não encontrar, ela o cria. Isso porque o espaço público aumenta, ou porque o seu contato com o mesmo aumenta. E assim ela coloca novas intimidades na telinha. A televisão vive do chocar os telespectadores. Chocando-os, fascina-os, afirma Bucci. E abrange muitas fronteiras. De idades a classes. “O mesmo vale para os valores éticos. A televisão patrocina cursos educativos, telecursos de química, matemática e geografia e, ao mesmo tempo, opera numa linguagem cada vez mais sumária, reforçando a desnecessidade da leitura do estudo e da reflexão, A TV nega aquilo em que diz acreditar. A TV não tem o controle da TV”.

    Conforme o que foi dito, a TV se confunde com o espaço publico, mas não domina por completo. Está, contraditoriamente, sujeita aos movimentos dele. E a publicidade, não só se tornou parte recorrente aos blocos de televisão, como também se tornou linguagem da mesma. Não só dentro da política – esta que já depende do marketing e das ações televisivas para ganhar mais votos – mas também de toda a sua estrutura. Os programas da TV são publicidades de si mesmo (video-show), a publicidade em si, faz propaganda de si mesmo, para também virar atração, entretenimento. Dentro da TV, “o amor, a paixão, os direitos sociais ou as liberdades individuais, a beleza física, a fé religiosa e até os orgasmos são convertidos em objetos de consumo.”

 Viva o Youtube, o Vimeo e a liberdade de escolha.

LEITURA RECOMENDADA:

    Brasil em Tempo de TV, Eugenio Bucci

    Boitempo Editorial, 2005

Depois o assunto morre, ninguém mais ouve falar. Aquilo que era noticiado como muitíssimo importante - por isso mesmo com tanto destaque - cai no esquecimento. Até a imprensa, que só falava e pensava no tal assunto, o esquece. O que se dirá então da memória da população, se ela nunca é consultada na hora de definir esses temas? Mais fácil ainda de esquecer.

Esse funcionamento é generalizado. Não é privilégio de nehum meio ou empresa específica. Também não é restrito a uma região. Aqui no Espírito Santo não é diferente.

Este post é uma pequena contribuição para relembrar alguns assuntos que são muito importantes, mas que já foram esquecidos pela cobertura da nossa imprensa.

1) O que aconteceu com a ação do Ministério Público Estadual que proibia a cobrança dos estacionamentos privados na primera hora de uso, e que obrigava a cobrança fracionada?

2) Que fim levou a ameaça do governo do Estado de retomar (encampar) a concessão da Rodosol?

As sugestões para incremento dessa lista são muito bem-vindas.

2) Agenda Khalayak
a) Familiarty (keakraban), derajat kesadaran khalayak akan topik tertentu.
b) Personal salience (penonjolan pribadi), relevansi kepentingan individu dengan ciri pribadi.
c) Favorability (kesenangan), pertimbangan senang atau tidak senang akan topik berita.

3) Agenda Kebijakan
a) Support (dukungan), kegiatan menyenangkan bagi posisi berita tertentu.
b) Likehood of action (kemungkinan kegiatan), kemungkinan pemerintah melaksanakan apa yang diibaratkan.
c) Freedom of action (kebebasan bertindak), nilai kegiatan yang mungkin dilakukan pemerintah.

Sedangkan Asumsi-asumsi dasar teori Agenda Setting yaitu;
- Khalayak tidak hanya mempelajai isu-isu pemberitaan, tetapi juga mempelajari seberapa besar arti penting diberikan pada suatu isu atau topik berdasarkan cara media massa memberikan penekanan terhadap isu atau topik tersebut.
- Media massa mempunyai kemampuan untuk menyeleksi dan mengarahkan perhatian masyarakat pada gagasan atau peristiwa tertentu.

2. Peran Media

1) Fungsi Informatif, yang dimaksud fungsi informatif adalah kommas menyediakan informasi tentang peristiwa yang terdapat di dalam masyarakat, baik nasional maupun Internasional. Fungsi informasi menyangkut berbagai bidang, semua peristiwa bias menjadi sumber berita; politik, ekonomi, kesehatan, Iptek, dll.
2) Fungsi Mendidik, fungsi kommas yang lain adalah mendidik masyarakat. Komunikasi massa mendidik masyarakat untuk berpikir kritis dan memiliki pengetahuan yang luas.
3) Fungsi Menghibur, acara-acara hiburan seperti film, musik, komedi yang lebih banyak diminati
4) Fungsi Meyakinkan; mengukuhkan sikap, menjadikan kepercayaan, sikap, nilai dan opini seseorang semakin kuat. Mengubah sikap, mengubah sikap seseorang yang netral agar mengikuti kehendak pihak-pihak tertentu melalui tayangan-tayangan atau tulisan-tulisan media massa. Menggerakkan, dilihat dari sudut pandang pemasang iklan, fungsi terpenting dari media adalah menggerakkan para konsumen untuk bertindak (membeli). Menawarkan etika atau sistem nilai tertentu; dengan mengungkapkan secara terbuka adanya penyimpangan tertentu dari suatu norma yang berlaku, media merangsang masyarakat untuk mngubah situasi.
5) Meningkatkan Aktivitas Politik, dengan seringnya seseorang mengkonsumsi media massa baik cetak maupun elektronik maka pengetahuannya akan bertambah, tak terkecuali dalam bidang politik, sehingga dapat meningkatkan kesadaran mereka untuk melakukan aktivitas politik (Mc Quail, 2000).

Sumber :
jurnal.bl.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/ 2007/04/blcom-03-vol2-no2-april20071.pdf

dengan judul

PEMBENTUKAN UKP3R DAN PERTARUNGAN ELIT POLITIK
Oleh : Nawiroh Vera, S.Sos

Durant setmanes, els mateixos diaris i telenotícies ens han estat bombardejant amb un únic tema: la sequera. Els telenotícies de tv3 semblaven Sequenotícies i més aviat semblava que fessin campanya pro-trasvassament...

Ara ja no toca sequera, ara toca crisi econòmica. Pràcticament 10 minuts al dia per parlar que les coses van malament i aniran pitjor, la vaga de transportistes (que es fotin, a mi també em surt cara la pujada dels carburants) també és tractada com una mena de fi del món anticipada. El 30 minuts, un documental que vaticina la fi imminent del petroli i l'arribada, pràcticament de l'època mad max.

Ja no em crec res. Les empreses quan deixen de guanyar menys diners que l'any anterior, ja parlen de crisi. Que tanquin immobiliàries em sembla estupendu, menys especuladors. Si tots els camioners que portaven totxos amunt i avall ara no tenen feina, que en busquin alternatives, no subvencions. Ja n'hi ha prou de rèmores subvencionades.

Clar que la gent fa cua al mercadona per anar a comprar com a bojos, és que ens hi feu tornar. Aneu a pastar!

O potser tindrà raó un company de feina que deia que si Obama és president, serà la fí del món... (basat en que sempre que en pelis i sèries yanquis, sempre que el president és negre, tot és a punt de petar). Necessitarem un Jack Bauer?

Unfortunately, I can't help but be somewhat cynical about all these claims. I can't help reading, hearing and watching a myriad political journalists give out the same (ironically) tired bunch of cliches as they observe that Mr Brown looks tired, or that Alistair Darling has eyebrows (and what eyebrows they are!) or that certain senior Labour members in the Scottish parliament perhaps should be strung up and shot. The news industry seems to have taken the golly-we-have-to-give-away-free-shit-to-get-readers to an extreme, I can practically hear the newstand men of the future declaring chirpliy; 'READALLABOUTIT! Free bunch of cliches' with every copy!'

Beyond the facile observations made above though, there are two frankly disturbing aspects at the bottom of the current predicament of the government as the media portrays it. And, as a good student, I'm going to employ both my skills as a historian and a politics student to diagnose them (you lucky, lucky bastards, dear reader!)

Historically, at the start of the Blair years - and writing that still looks weird; look at it, Blair, historical: how the hell did that happen?? - we were all told (infamously) 'things can only get better!' The Major government was tired, populated by a motley array of minor freak-show exhibits and the Tory party was more riven with internal disputes than the last meeting of EU Commissioners and Spanish fishermen.

Is that an echo I hear? No, thought not. The media has massive power to influence people's opinions of the government. Would it not be good - just for once - to not hear about the next-best-thing on the menu, but the highlights currently on offer? Is there something behind all this though? Certainly, both the Tories in 1997 and the last year or so of Labour government seem to have got too worked up with the institutional agenda. With sleaze and cash-4-peerages, both have been rocked by major scandals...

But has anything really changed? In the last week two senior Tories - the Party Chair Caroline Spellman and their leader in the EU Parliament - are going to be investigated by the Parliamentary Standards commission for what are alleged to be serious breaches of expenses regulations. I think it is important that the people ask if they can really trust 'new-best-thing' Call-me-Dave Cameron and his cronies. I worry that taking him at face value could be exceedingly detrimental to the country. More importantly, it alarms me considerably that any government's fate can be determined by a small, unelected bunch of hacks and newspaper editors. Because they're obviously the best qualified people to comment on the qualities of Her Majesty's government and opposition, aren't they?

Jurusan Peternakan, Fakultas Pertanian, Universitas Bengkulu

            Kita menyadari bahwa dewasa ini media massa amat besar peranannya bagi masyarakat modern. Masyarakat modern tidak akan bisa terlepas dari apa yang disebut media massa. Siapa yang tidak pernah menonton televisi? Siapa yang tidak pernah membaca surat kabar dan majalah? Dan siapa yang belum begitu akrab dengan radio? Rasanya hampir semua penduduk dunia telah terbius oleh media massa. Mereka dapat belajar dari  koran, atau televisi atau media massa lainnya. Mereka juga dapat hiburan segar. Mereka juga dapat informasi yang mereka butuhkan. Dan lain sebagainya.

            Begitu besar pengaruh media massa, sehingga banyak yang berpendapat bahwa media massa tidak saja mempengaruhi pembaca dari segi kognitif, tetapi juga segi afektif  dan perilaku juga dapat dipengaruhi oleh media massa.

            Begitu besar pengaruh media massa, sehingga media massa sering digunakan sebagai media untuk membentuk pendapat umum. Salah satu teori tentang hal ini adalah agenda setting. Asumsi agenda setting ini memiliki kelebihan karena mudah dipahami dan relatif mudah untuk diuji. Dasar pemikirannya adalah diantara berbagai topik yang dimuat media massa, topik yang mendapat lebih banyak perhatian dari media massa  akan menjadi lebih akrab bagi pembacanya dan akan dianggap penting dalam suatu periode waktu tertentu, dan akan terjadi sebaliknya bagi topik yang kurang mendapat perhatian media. Perkiraan ini dapat diuji dengan membandingkan hasil dari analisis isi media secara kuantitatif dengan perubahan dalam pendapat umum yang diukur melalui survei pada dua atau lebih waktu yang berbeda.

            Dalam teori ini, audiens tidak saja mempelajari berita dan hal lain melalui media massa, tetapi juga mempelajari seberapa besar arti penting diberikan pada suatu isu atau topik dari cara media massa memberikan penekanan terhadap topik tersebut.

            Sebagai contoh misalnya, media massa menampilkan kenaikkan BBM  sebagai berita utama, dan hampir semua media massa memberitakannya di halaman utama. Berita-berita ini tidak saja dimuat sehari saja tetapi dalam jangka tertentu. Kemudian media massa secara terus menerus memberitakan bagaimana dampak negatif akibat kenaikkan tersebut serta ulasan-ulasan yang menekankan bahwa pemerintah seharusnya bisa ambil jalan lain. Penempatan berita BBM di halaman utama tersebut – yang berarti dianggap penting oleh media massa – akan mempengaruhi audiens dan kemudian audiens menganggap penting berita dan ulasan tentang BBM. Pemberitaan dan ulasan media massa tersebut kemudian dapat membentuk pendapat umum. Ulasan-ulasan yang bernada kurang memihak pemerintah yang ditampilkan oleh media massa perlahan-lahan dapat membentuk pendapat umum. Bisa jadi pendapat umum tersebut kemudian berkembang kepada menentang kenaikkan BBM secara besar-besaran.

            Contoh lain, anda masih ingat berita tentang perselingkuhan anggota DPR bukan? Berita ini ditempatkan di halaman utama dan  diberitakan secara berkesinambungan. Akibatnya, timbul reaksi dari berbagai kalangan masyarakat. Berbagai hujatan dan ulasan selalu menghiasi media massa. Hal ini tentu saja menjadi  pembicaraan hangat di semua lapisan masyarakat, dan setiap waktu dan tempat.

            Sebaliknya, hal-hal yang diabaikan oleh media massa menjadi kurang diperhatikan oleh masyarakat. Ada beberapa sebab. Pertama, karena bisa jadi masyarakat tidak dapat mengetahui kejadian tersebut. Sehingga meskipun kejadian itu mungkin amat penting diketahui oleh masyarakat, maka hal itu tidak dianggap. Kedua, tidak adanya pemberitaan atau penempatan berita di halaman yang tidak strategis – yang dianggap oleh media massa tentunya kurang penting – juga sering kurang mendapat perhatian oleh masyarakat. Bisa jadi masyarakat menganggap hal itu juga tidak penting. Padahal kadangkala berita-berita di halaman yang kurang strategis atau berita yang tidak intensif sering kali merupakan berita yang penting untuk segera mendapatkan pemecahannya.

            Inilah konsep agenda setting dari media massa, dimana media massa dengan memberikan perhatian pada isu tertentu dan mengabaikan yang lainnya, akan memiliki pengaruh terhadap pendapat umum. Orang akan cenderung mengetahui tentang hal-hal yang diberitakan oleh media massa  dan menerima susunan prioritas yang diberikan media massa terhadap isu-isu yang berbeda.

            Dari uraian tersebut, maka dapat dipahami mengapa orang berusaha menguasai media massa. Ya, mereka yang menguasai media massa dapat berharap meraup kemenangan yang gemilang. Fakta telah membuktikannya.

Estáis invitados a colaborar, en nombre de la ciencia ;-)

“The press may not be succesful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly succesful in telling its readers what to think about.”

Media massa memiliki kekuatan untuk mempengaruhi agenda media kepada agenda publik. Teori Agenda

Setting didasari oleh asumsi demikian. Teori ini sendiri dicetuskan oleh Profesor Jurnalisme Maxwell McCombs dan Donald Shaw.

Menurut McCombs dan Shaw, “we judge as important what the media judge as important.” Kita cenderung menilai sesuatu itu penting sebagaimana media massa menganggap hal tersebut penting. Jika media massa menganggap suatu isu itu penting maka kita juga akan menganggapnya penting. Sebaliknya, jika isu tersebut tidak dianggap penting oleh media massa, maka isu tersebut juga menjadi tidak penting bagi diri kita, bahkan menjadi tidak terlihat sama sekali.

Denis McQuail (2000: 426) mengutip definisi Agenda Setting sebagai “process by which the relative attention given to items or issues in news coverage infulences the rank order of public awareness of issues and attribution of significance. As an extension, effects on public policy may occur.”

Walter Lipmann pernah mengutarakan pernyataan bahwa media berperan sebagai mediator antara “the world outside and the pictures in our heads”. McCombs dan Shaw juga sependapat dengan Lipmann. Menurut mereka, ada korelasi yang kuat dan signifikan antara apa-apa yang diagendakan oleh media massa dan apa-apa yang menjadi agenda publik.

Awalnya teori ini bermula dari penelitian mereka tentang pemilihan presiden di Amerika Serikat tahun 1968. Dari penelitian tersebut ditemukan bahwa ada hubungan sebab-akibat antara isi media dengan persepsi pemilih.

McCombs dan Shaw pertama-tama melihat agenda media. Agenda media dapat terlihat dari aspek apa saja yang coba ditonjolkan oleh pemberitaan media terebut. Mereka melihat posisi pemberitaan dan panjangnya berita sebagai faktor yang ditonjolkan oleh redaksi. Untuk surat kabar, headline pada halaman depan, tiga kolom di berita halaman dalam, serta editorial, dilihat sebagai bukti yang cukup kuat bahwa hal tersebut menjadi fokus utama surat kabar tersebut. Dalam majalah, fokus utama terlihat dari bahasan utama majalah tersebut. Sementara dalam berita televisi dapat dilihat dari tayangan spot berita pertama hingga berita ketiga, dan biasanya disertai dengan sesi tanya jawab atau dialog setelah sesi pemberitaan.

Sedangkan dalam mengukur agenda publik, McCombs dan Shaw melihat dari isu apa yang didapatkan dari kampanye tersebut. Temuannya adalah, ternyata ada kesamaan antara isu yang dibicarakan atau dianggap penting oleh publik atau pemilih tadi, dengan isu yang ditonjolkan oleh pemberitaan media massa.

McCombs dan Shaw percaya bahwa fungsi agenda-setting media massa bertanggung jawab terhadap hampir semua apa-apa yang dianggap penting oleh publik. Karena apa-apa yang dianggap prioritas oleh media menjadi prioritas juga bagi publik atau masyarakat.

Akan tetapi, kritik juga dapat dilontarkan kepada teori ini, bahwa korelasi belum tentu juga kausalitas. Mungkin saja pemberitaan media massa hanyalah sebagai cerminan terhadap apa-apa yang memang sudah dianggap penting oleh masyarakat. Meskipun demikian, kritikan ini dapat dipatahkan dengan asumsi bahwa pekerja media biasanya memang lebih dahulu mengetahui suatu isu dibandingkan dengan masyarakat umum.

News doesn’t select itself. Berita tidak bisa memilih dirinya sendiri untuk menjadi berita. Artinya ada pihak-pihak tertentu yang menentukan mana yang menjadi berita dan mana yang bukan berita. Siapakah mereka? Mereka ini yang disebut sebagai “gatekeepers.” Di dalamnya termasuk pemimpin redaksi, redaktur, editor, hingga jurnalis itu sendiri.

Dalam dunia komunikasi politik, para calon presiden biasanya memiliki tim media yang disebut dengan istilah ‘spin doctor.’ Mereka berperan dalam menciptakan isu dan mempublikasikannya melalui media massa. Mereka ini juga termasuk ke dalam ‘gatekeeper’ tadi.

Setelah tahun 1990an, banyak penelitian yang menggunakan teori agenda-setting makin menegaskan kekuatan media massa dalam mempengaruhi benak khalayaknya. Media massa mampu membuat beberapa isu menjadi lebih penting dari yang lainnya. Media mampu mempengaruhi tentang apa saja yang perlu kita pikirkan. Lebih dari itu, kini media massa juga dipercaya mampu mempengaruhi bagaimana cara kita berpikir. Para ilmuwan menyebutnya sebagai framing.

McCombs dan Shaw kembali menegaskan kembali tentang teori agenda setting, bahwa “the media may not only tell us what to think about, they also may tell us how and what to think about it, and perhaps even what to do about it” (McCombs, 1997).

Daftar Pustaka:

Griffin, Emory A., A First Look at Communication Theory, 5th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003, p.390—402

McQuail, Denis, Mass Communication Theory, 4^th edition, Thousand Oakes: Sage, 2000