Agenda-setting refers to the process by which certain influential groups in society decide which issues are important to them and that they feel need to be dealt with. ‘Actors’ (an entity which plays an identifiable role in society) in society have ‘agendas’ (a set of prioritized issues for discussion or action), and agenda-setting is the process by which they are ‘made’. Agendas of this nature are generally not written down as structured documents with issues numbered in order of perceived importance that is then published for all to see, they are preferences that may be measured (or assumed) through the words and actions of the groups over a period of time.
Who is on top of the Agenda Setting?
So who are these actors and how are their agendas made? Mainstream research on agenda setting began with studies on how the ‘public’ agenda is influenced by the ‘media’ agenda, with the public being the general population and the media the print and broadcast press.
Studies found that when asked what they thought were the most important issues facing their country, their answers very closely reflected the patterns of media coverage at that time. This does not necessarily mean that the media are influencing the way the public thinks, but simply that it influences the topics or issues that they think about, their agendas. As Bernard Cohen famously stated, the press “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling people what to think about”.
So if the media is playing a major role in telling the people what to think about, then how do the media decide what their own agenda is? Are they forming their agendas independently? Actual events, personal experience, and preconceived notions of what they think is important to influence the media (editors and reporters), but research has revealed other factors. Studies suggest that the media `index’ the news according to government viewpoints (Mermin, 1999).
Particular with regards to foreign affairs, it is simply cheaper and faster to discuss issues with one’s own government, and there is a perceived ‘reliability of the source. A sense of nationalism among the press also means they are more likely to view the world through the lens of their own country. This gives the agenda of policymakers’ considerable influence over the media agenda
On the other hand, the public and the media both have been shown to project influence on the policy agenda. In democracies, many sections of the policymakers are elected and must, to some extent; deal with issues on the public agenda if they are to be re-elected. Policymakers are also likely to be the target of demonstrations or lobbying from certain sections of the public, such as special interest groups or powerful corporations.
If not through demonstrations or lobbying, policymakers may learn of the agendas of the public agenda through public opinion polls, or through the media. One prominent view of the role of the media is that it should act as a watchdog, to keep a watchful eye on the government and to make noise if it does something wrong (another view is that it should act as a mirror, objectively reflecting reality). By concentrating on a particular issue in its coverage, the media can force the policymakers to pay attention to that issue (although it may not be necessarily able to influence the outcome).
Actors in the Agenda Setting
Actors in the agenda-setting Process against conflict
The above discussion has given us a rough idea as to who the actors are in the agenda-setting process. We have seen the public, the media and the policymakers. Before we go into more detail it is also possible to add on another actor, the academia. Although the academic community may appear less powerful than the other actors, they do have a significant role to, play in agenda-setting, particularly as it relates to conflict and conflict resolution, not least because they are responsible for the recording of human history.
It is important to note here that agenda-setting research has been developed and applied in relation to a number of varied situations, including elections, domestic economic policy, social welfare, defense spending and foreign military intervention, to name but a few, and its application varies depending on the subject to which it is applied. In this course, the process of agenda-setting will be used only as it applies to foreign conflict and conflict-resolution, and often conflict in which the country in question is not directly involved.
Actors are not single and homogenous groups. Policymakers, for example, include international organisations as well as the executive and legislative branches of individual governments and their bureaucracies. Speaking of the media agenda does not suggest that all media groups come together and hammer out an agenda of issues for consideration. The media includes many different corporations in many different countries, each with their own management structures. The public is also made up of a variety of potentially conflicting groups. Discussing agenda-setting in this sense will inevitably involve certain generalisations.
Below is a summary of the actors that we will be looking at and some of their component groups:
Policymakers: international organisations, national governments (executive branch, legislative branch, bureaucracy)
Media: Print, broadcast, internet
Public: General public, interest groups, corporations, NGOs
Academia: university academics, research institute academics, specialists
Inter-Actor Relations
We have already seen that the agendas of at least some of these actors are not necessarily independent of the others. If we look more closely, we will see that there are ways in which each actor is influenced by each of the other actors in some ways in the formation of their agendas regarding conflict and conflict resolution. The effect may be large or small, but there is certainly a linkage. In the final analysis, agendas are the product of real-life events, filtered through the lens of internal organisational dynamics and influenced by the agendas of other actors, and even the individual experiences and interpersonal relations of those working within actor groups.
Below is a simple model, which shows that all of the four actors influence each other within the boundaries of the real-world events The details of how these agendas influence each other in regards to conflict and conflict resolution will be dealt with in each of the following units, but below is a brief overview.
The policy agenda is influenced by the media agenda because policymakers themselves are direct consumers of the media, and to a certain degree they believe that the media is a reflection of public opinion. Policymakers are also the target of media interviews and emotive appeals, and are forced to respond to media criticism, sometimes in real-time.
With the power to elect, and the right to demonstrate, petition and lobby, the general public also influence the policymakers. Interest groups and corporations provide a great deal of campaign funds to politicians, which also gives them leverage. Private citizens can also establish NGOs, including advocacy groups, or aid groups through which policymakers often channel emergency relief resources.
Academics may influence policymakers when employed as advisors and consultants. They may also provide detailed unsolicited policy recommendations or appeals, and their work in academic publications or periodicals may be read by policymakers.
The media agenda is influenced by the policy agenda because, as noted above, policymakers are a key source of information for the media on foreign events. Even if not through direct interviews, policymakers formally and informally release information to the media. They may also attempt to limit access by the media to information on foreign conflicts.
The public are also in a position to influence the media, considering that the general public are the main consumers of news, and that corporations are the main consumers of advertising vital to media revenue. NGOs in conflict zones may also use the media to draw attention to the conflict and their activities. Academics can influence the media because they are frequently used as sources in interviews, articles and op-ed pieces. They may also use the media to draw attention to the results of their studies.
The public agenda is influenced by the policy agenda in a number of different ways. The general public listens to what policymakers say (although usually through the media), corporations are provided with subsidies and diplomatic assistance in their foreign ventures, and NGOs are often largely reliant on government funds for emergency relief projects in conflict zones.
The media have a great influence on the public because the public rely almost solely on the media to provide them with information on foreign events. The media also influence NGOs because where the media focus on a conflict, funding for their activity is likely to follow. Academics influence the public because of their teachings at universities, and a certain proportion of the work they produce is for public consumption, including textbooks.
Academics are influenced by the policy agenda because many think tanks are funded (or at least subsidised by) the government, as are public universities. This does not necessarily mean that the outcome of the research is controlled, but funding opportunities often depend on the subject matter.
Academics are also influenced by the media because they are consumers of news and have a certain reliance on the media for source material, which may also influence their research choices. The public influences academia because a certain proportion of academics do pursue popularity, aiming to produce material that will sell well to public consumers.
Oddly enough, as we will see in the units ahead when all of the internal dynamics and external influences have done their work and agendas are formed, the agendas of the majority of the actors tend to show a high level of similarity, despite their diverse interests, backgrounds and goals. One of the most striking of these similarities is that almost invariably, conflicts in Africa are given a low priority on these agendas, despite their scale and level of humanitarian emergency.