Robert Cocchiola

Professor Stanley Baran

10/24/17

Follow Up Paper

Article 11 Summary & Critique

Scheufele & Tewksburys article, Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution

of Three Media Effects Models, highlighted three topics that are imperative to understanding

media effects. The article examines if and how the three models are related and what potential

relationships between them tell theorists and researchers about the effects of mass media. Its

important for the reader to keep in mind that the article was written to examine the different

modes of presentation, not a content difference in the effect of messages.

Scheufele & Tewksbury say framing is based on the assumption that how an issue is

characterized in news reports can have an influence on how it is understood by audiences.

Framing is seen as a macroconstruct and a microconstruct. A macroconstruct in terms of a

framing refers to the methods of presentation that journalists and other communicators use to

present information in a certain way that really sticks with the underlying schemas within their

audiences. A microconstruct is more concerned with how people use information and

presentation features to form impressions.

Scheufele & Tewksbury described agenda setting as the idea that there is a strong

correlation between the emphasis that mass media place on certain issues (based on relative

placement of amount of coverage) and the importance attributed to these issues by mass

audiences. More simply put, there is a strong correlation between how much the mass media

emphasizes an issue, and the impact on the mass audience.

 Scheufele & Tewksbury describe priming as the changes in the standards that people use

to make political evaluations. Priming occurs when news content suggests to news audiences

that they should use specific issues as benchmarks for evaluating the performance of leaders and

governments. Priming is seen as an extension of agenda setting. Priming and agenda setting are

both accessibility-based models. By making some issues more significant in peoples mind,

mass media is able to shape the considerations that people take into account when making

judgments about political candidates or issues at hand.

When comparing the three models, in order to sort the differences, one must ask

themselves how the news messages are created, how these messages are processed, and how the

effects are then produced.

When it comes to news production, frame building and agenda setting refer to

macroscopic mechanisms that deal with message construction rather than media effects. The

second point of comparison comes through news processing. This essentially looks at how news

messages that set agendas and frames are processed by audiences. Simple exposure to news may

be enough for agenda setting, but it is not enough for framing effects to occur. The third point of

comparison is looking at locus of effect. Agenda setting effects assume the locus of effect lies

within the heightened accessibility of an issue in the news, while framing assumes that the locus

of effect lies within the description or label of a news story. This brings about second-level

agenda setting, or in a sense, a more refined version of agenda setting.

Scheufele & Tewksbury point out the difference between accessibility effects and

applicability effects. Agenda setting and priming are considered accessibility effects because

they are based off of memory-based models of information processing. Framing is seen to have
applicability effects because the outcome of a message suggests a connection between two

concepts such that, after exposure to the message, audiences accept that they are connected.

In conclusion, the article makes it very clear for the reader to understand that how people

think about an issue has implications for whether they think about it as well.

In my opinion however, I believe this article was not easy to decipher. I think that if

Scheufele & Tewksbury used more simple, concrete examples to portray their ideas, the article

would be much stronger. Some of the examples were confusing to understand and relate back to

the text. The modern examples you used during my presentation for the class to understand were

far easier to understand and learn from.