You are on page 1of 9

1

TV Made Me Do It!
A paper examining agenda-setting theory and violence in mass media
Bridget Ebsary
PBRL 2013
Communications Theory and Practice
Richard Zurawski
March 22, 2011
2

Agenda-Setting Theory
Agenda-setting is a theory of mass communications which was put forward by Maxwell
McCombs and Donald Shaw in 1972 (Griffin, 2009, p. 359). The theory states the mass media
have the ability to transfer the salience of issues on their news agenda to the public agenda
(Griffin, 2009, p. 359). In summarizing agenda-setting theory, McCombs and Shaw stated We
judge as important what the media judge as important (as cited in Griffin, 2009, p. 359).
McCombs and Shaw, both journalism professors, focused their research on the media
coverage of politics and whether that coverage had an effect on the voters (Griffin, 2009, p. 359).
In 1976, McCombs and several other researchers closely followed the election of President
Jimmy Carter (Griffin, 2009, p.361). After analyzing the content of media coverage and
surveying voters for a period of eleven months, the researchers found a relationship between the
media agenda and the public agenda (Griffin, 2009, p.361). The results showed that the public
agenda reflected the medias approximately four to six weeks later (Griffin, 2009, p. 361).
The implications of agenda-setting are significant. Glen Broom wrote:
the more concerned people are about something, the more they tend to learn about it,
the stronger their opinions are of it, and the more they tend to take action on it. (Notice,
however, that the agenda-setting theory does not predict what information they will seek,
which way their opinions will change, or what types of actions they will take.) (Broom,
2009, p. 195).
The mantra of agenda-setting had been the media arent very successful in telling us
what to think, but they are stunningly successful in telling us what to think about (Griffin, 2009,
p. 364). However, the mid-1990s saw a change in agenda-setting theory. Instead of the media
simply telling us what to think about, scholars began to focus on how the media framed the
3

issues. Framing is the selection of a restricted number of thematically related attributes for
inclusion on the media agenda when a particular object or issue is discussed (Griffin, 2009, p.
364). An example of framing was shown in the research conducted by Salma Ghanem. She
studied the media coverage and public perception of crime in Texas (Griffin, 2009, p. 366).
During her study in the early 1990s, the crime rate in Texas was decreasing, but the public
concern was drastically increasing (Griffin, 2009, p. 366). Ghanem focused her research on how
the issue of crime was framed in the news. The most powerful frame was one that cast crime as
something that could happen to anyone. The stories noted that the robbery took place in broad
daylight, or the shooting was random and without provocation (Griffin, 2009, p. 366). The other
frame the media used was the location of the crime. Crimes that occurred within the state caused
public concern to increase (Griffin, 2009, p. 366). These two frames combined caused viewers to
conclude that they could be the next victim (Griffin, 2009, p. 366).
Agenda-setting has also been shown to affect our behaviour. The most famous example
of this would likely be the events of September 11
th
. Most of us have a televised image of an
air-liner crashing into the World Trade Center etched in our minds, with the result that the
number of people flying plummeted and didnt recover for over two years (Griffin, 2009, p.
367).
Given the development of media framing, McCombs and Shaw revised their work. They
now summarize agenda-setting theory as 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 (as
cited in Griffin, 2009, p. 366).


4

Application of Theory
Often after a violent tragedy, we reflect on what caused such a horrific event. The
shooting in Tucson, Arizona earlier this year was one such tragedy. On January 8, 2011,
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head at a meet-and-greet event (Arizona
shooting, 2011). Miraculously she survived and is currently going through the recovery process
(Arizona shooting, 2011). Sadly, six other people at the event were killed, including a federal
court judge and a 9-year-old girl (Arizona shooting, 2011). The suspect, Jared Lee Loughner,
was taken into custody at the scene and now faces more than 50 charges (Arizona shooting,
2011). Many of us wondered what would cause Loughner to act so violently. Was he mentally
disturbed? Did the heated and divisive political rhetoric in the United States and the medias
coverage of it cause him to do this?
While we still do not know a lot about the shooter and his motivation for his actions,
plenty of speculation has been made about politics and the media. Sarah Palin was heavily
criticized in the wake of the Tucson shooting for her gun-related statements and images
(Berman, 2011). Leading up to the 2010 election, Palin posted a map on Facebook depicting
crosshairs over targeted congressional districts, including that of Congresswoman Giffords
(Berman, 2011). Palin also made a public statement in which she said Dont retreat.
RELOAD (Berman, 2011). Speaking to the issue of the map, former Congressman Chris
Carney said I'm not sure if 'blame' is the right word for Ms. Palin, but I think it wasn't helpful,
obviouslyIt would be very useful if she came out and, if not apologize, say that she was wrong
in putting that sort of logo on peoples' districts (as cited in Berman & Lawrence, 2011).
The question as to whether or not the media plays a role in causing violent acts was given
particular attention in the aftermath of the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado (Moore,
5

2002). High school students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went to school on April 20, 1999 and
fired over 900 rounds of ammunition, killing twelve students and one teacher before killing
themselves (Moore, 2002). In his film Bowling for Columbine, director Michael Moore explored
the possible causes of this tragedy. Some of the sources that were alleged to have influenced the
two boys were violent movies, video games, violent cartoons such as South Park, heavy-metal
music, and television (Moore, 2002). The musician Marilyn Manson was particularly targeted as
being a negative influence for violent behaviour (Moore, 2002).
With such a broad list of possible influences, it begs the question as to how much
violence there is in our culture. In his article, author Michael Miller discussed several startling
statistics on this issue. He referred to the National Television Violence Study which analyzed the
violent content found on television (Miller, 2001, p. 6). After examining 10,000 hours of
programming over a three year period, the study found that approximately 60% of the programs
contained scenes of violence (Miller, 2001, p. 6). Most alarming were the following results:
Some estimate that a preschool child who watches two hours of cartoons a day (about the
American average) will be exposed to nearly 10,000 violent incidents a year. According
to their calculations, an 11-year-old will have viewed 8000 murders and 100,000 other
acts of television violence (Miller, 2001, p. 6).
John P. Murray, a professor from Kansas State University in the School of Family
Studies and Human Services, wrote:
One of the suggestions about the way in which media violence affects audiences of all
ages is that such depictions transmit a sense of acceptance or normativeness about
violence in our lives a confirmation that violence is an acceptable and usual way to
resolve conflicts (Murray, 1999, p. 47).
6

Murray went on to cite a 1972 report from the Surgeon General which determined that
violence on television does influence children who view that programming and does increase
the likelihood that viewers will become more aggressive (Murray, 1999, p. 47). This report did
note that not all children would be influenced to the point of becoming violent and that affects
can vary from person to person (Murray, 1999, p. 47).
Murray also discussed three harmful effects of violent television. The first is a direct
effect in which a person who watches a lot of violent television programming exemplifies violent
behaviour (Murray, 1999, p. 48). The second effect is desensitization in which the viewer
becomes less sensitive to violence in society and the suffering of victims (Murray, 1999, p. 48).
The third effect is the Mean World Syndrome, which is embodied by viewers of violent
television who then in turn look at the real world as being more dangerous (Murray, 1999, p. 48).
In his book The myth of media violence: A critical introduction (2007), author David
Trend argued that violence in mass media plays an important role in our society. Trend wrote:
Media violence isnt going to disappear and most current efforts to stop it are unlikely to
succeed. Like displays of material excess and gratuitous sex, violence exists within a
commercial structure predicated on a powerful system of fantasies. Whether or not we
like to admit it, these fantasies accrue their appeal and popularity because they are linked
to peoples deepest desires and fears (Trend, 2007, p. 10).
If Trends statement is true, then the question becomes what happens when a viewer tries
to make the fantasy a reality? W. James Potter wrote about that issue in his book The 11 myths of
media violence (2003). He described a case in Florida where a 12-year-old boy killed a 6-year-
old girl when he tried to replicate a move he saw in professional wrestling (Potter, 2003, p. 52).
7

The boy was found guilty because the jury believed he was acting of his own free will and
needed to be held accountable. Potter wrote the following about the issue of accountability:
Do people have free will? Of course. Should people, even adolescents, be held
accountable for their actions? Yes. But concluding that people should be held
accountable for their actions is not the same thing as saying that the media exert no
influence on people. Accountability and influence are two distinct issues (Potter, 2003, p.
52).

Evaluation
Agenda-setting theory states 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 (as cited in
Griffin, 2009, p. 366). The studies cited in the section above prove that at the very least, violence
in the media influences our thoughts about the issue of violence. In some cases, like the one
described in Potters book, violence in the media can even influence our actions.
In the movie Bowling for Columbine, there is a scene of a rally against a Marilyn Manson
concert in Denver following the school shooting (Moore, 2002). One man at the rally expressed
the effects of agenda-setting in that situation with the following:
Some will be so brash to ask if we believe that all who hear Manson tomorrow night will
go out and commit violent acts. The answer is no. But does everybody who watches a
Lexus ad go and buy a Lexus? No, but a few do (Moore, 2002).


8

References
Arizona shooting. The New York Times. (2011). Retrieved from
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/arizona_shooting_2011/ind
ex.html?scp=1-spot&sq=tucson%20shooting&st=cse
Berman, J. (2011, Jan. 9). Sarah Palins crosshairs ad dominates Gabrielle Giffords debate.
ABC News. Retrieved from
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palins-crosshairs-ad-focus-gabrielle-giffords-
debate/story?id=12576437
Berman, J., & Lawrence, C. Jr. (2011, Jan. 12). Sarah Palin admonishes Journalists, pundits not
to manufacture a blood libel. ABC News. Retrieved from
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palin-gabrielle-giffords-tucson-shooting-
admonishes-journalists-pundits-blood-libel/story?id=12582457
Broom, G.M. (2009). Cutlip & Centers effective public relations (10
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Griffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory (7
th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.
Miller, M. C. (2001). Does violence in the media cause violent behavior? Harvard Mental
Health Letter, 18(3), 5. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5071262&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Moore, M. (Producer & Director). (2002). Bowling for Columbine [Motion picture]. United
States: Alliance Atlantis.
9

Murray, J. (1999). Studies have established that media violence causes violence. In W. Dudley
(Ed.) Media violence: Opposing viewpoints (pp. 43-48). San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven
Press.
Potter, W. J. (2003). The 11 myths of media violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Trend, D. (2007). The myth of media violence: A critical introduction. Malden, Mass; Oxford,
U.K.: Blackwell Pub.

You might also like