Agenda-setting, Gatekeeping and Free T-Shirts
If you caught any of the national nightly news last Saturday night you might have seen clips of Sen. Barack Obama standing before a crowd of 16,000 people braving the frigid temperatures to hear him announce his candidacy for President of the United States. You might have then left your seat in front of the television to check a calendar because you swore it’s only 2007. And you’re right. The party primaries to determine candidates for the President of United States may not take place until next year, but the mighty marketing and publicity wheel is beginning to crank up
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2865196&page=1 .
Obama and Hillary Clinton both understand the power of the media to influence potential voters and that is why they are getting an early start on their campaigns. They also understand the theory of agenda setting and how this can be beneficial to their campaigns.
Denis McQuail states in chapter 19, page 512 of the McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory that, “Politicians seek to convince voters that the most important issues are those with which they are most closely identified. This is an essential part of advocacy and attempts at influencing public opinion. ” McQuail presents these comments under the section entitled “Agenda-Setting”.
Obama and Clinton are both off to early starts to their campaigns in order to maximize their exposure in the public eye through the myriad of different lenses of the media. By getting an early start on their campaigns, both candidates allow themselves for plenty of time to establish their leadership qualities with the public and, in turn, create an image of themselves in the public eye as a person capable of being President.
One of the devices they use to create this image is referenced in chapter 12 of McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory under the header of public relations and news management. McQuail describes the production of “pseudo-events’ like press conferences or major policy statements as a means to gain coverage and exposure for politicians.
Which leads us back to Obama’s declaration of candidacy for President of the United States last Saturday. Obama could have easily just sent out a press release to the major media outlets with a few simple statements that summarized his intentions to run for President. But that wouldn’t have garnered all the national attention that his announcement did. Instead, his campaign created a high energy event complete with music and free t-shirts that would, and did, stir up interest and coverage from the national media.
To be fair, this was a news worthy event because it involved a prominent figure making a news worthy announcement – with a little bit of Hollywood production added.
McQuail states it best in his conclusion for chapter 12 on page 334, “the publicity model helps to remind us that mass communication is often primarily a business, and show business at that. Its roots are as much in the theatre and the showground as in politics, art or education.”
So if McQuail is arguing that mass communication is driven by business and not necessarily objectivity, then how come so called ‘pseudo-events’ attract so much media attention?
To find the answer, we turn to the powers that control the flow of information – the gatekeepers.
McQuail defines gate keeping in chapter 12 as, “ the process by which selections are made in media work, especially decisions regarding whether or not to allow a particular news report to pass through the ‘gates’ of a news medium into the news channels.” Although there are some objective qualifiers of “news worthy” events such as power and fame of individuals involved, timeliness and proximity to name a few, there is also an element of subjectivity in the process.
And this is where the business motivations come into play. Case in point would be this past week with the abrupt passing of Anna Nicole Smith. I remember the buzz spreading around the office when this story broke. Fortunately, (or unfortunately for our productivity) we all have televisions at our desk so in a domino effect the department began to flip to the news channels to get the latest on the tragic death of Anna Nicole.
I remember watching CNN and their treatment of the story – you would have thought our country was going to war again with the volume and intensity of the coverage. Never mind the fact that this hard news entity was devoting so much time to someone that was famous, just for being famous.
But in the end the numbers (ratings) don’t lie, and here within lies your answer to erosion of gate keeping.
Lisa de Moraes of the Washington Post reports in her column posted on 2/15, “Anna Nicole Coverage Sweetens the Ratings Pot”, that “last Thursday, when Blitzer was standing in front of his Big Board of Moving Pictures, shepherding CNN's Anna Nicole coverage on "The Situation Room," he had an average audience of 1.7 million viewers -- nearly tripling his audience in the same hour the day before and beating Fox News Channel in the hour.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401813.html
So the question I pose to the rest of the class is, how would you classify the level of erosion of the gate keeping process? Do you think the major media outlets still make editorial decisions based on objective newsworthy events or what will bring in the best ratings? And do you believe that Obama’s decision to announce his candidacy for President this early will pay off through long-term exposure to the mass-media as a form of agenda setting to position himself as the “right” choice for President in the minds of voters?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2865196&page=1 .
Obama and Hillary Clinton both understand the power of the media to influence potential voters and that is why they are getting an early start on their campaigns. They also understand the theory of agenda setting and how this can be beneficial to their campaigns.
Denis McQuail states in chapter 19, page 512 of the McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory that, “Politicians seek to convince voters that the most important issues are those with which they are most closely identified. This is an essential part of advocacy and attempts at influencing public opinion. ” McQuail presents these comments under the section entitled “Agenda-Setting”.
Obama and Clinton are both off to early starts to their campaigns in order to maximize their exposure in the public eye through the myriad of different lenses of the media. By getting an early start on their campaigns, both candidates allow themselves for plenty of time to establish their leadership qualities with the public and, in turn, create an image of themselves in the public eye as a person capable of being President.
One of the devices they use to create this image is referenced in chapter 12 of McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory under the header of public relations and news management. McQuail describes the production of “pseudo-events’ like press conferences or major policy statements as a means to gain coverage and exposure for politicians.
Which leads us back to Obama’s declaration of candidacy for President of the United States last Saturday. Obama could have easily just sent out a press release to the major media outlets with a few simple statements that summarized his intentions to run for President. But that wouldn’t have garnered all the national attention that his announcement did. Instead, his campaign created a high energy event complete with music and free t-shirts that would, and did, stir up interest and coverage from the national media.
To be fair, this was a news worthy event because it involved a prominent figure making a news worthy announcement – with a little bit of Hollywood production added.
McQuail states it best in his conclusion for chapter 12 on page 334, “the publicity model helps to remind us that mass communication is often primarily a business, and show business at that. Its roots are as much in the theatre and the showground as in politics, art or education.”
So if McQuail is arguing that mass communication is driven by business and not necessarily objectivity, then how come so called ‘pseudo-events’ attract so much media attention?
To find the answer, we turn to the powers that control the flow of information – the gatekeepers.
McQuail defines gate keeping in chapter 12 as, “ the process by which selections are made in media work, especially decisions regarding whether or not to allow a particular news report to pass through the ‘gates’ of a news medium into the news channels.” Although there are some objective qualifiers of “news worthy” events such as power and fame of individuals involved, timeliness and proximity to name a few, there is also an element of subjectivity in the process.
And this is where the business motivations come into play. Case in point would be this past week with the abrupt passing of Anna Nicole Smith. I remember the buzz spreading around the office when this story broke. Fortunately, (or unfortunately for our productivity) we all have televisions at our desk so in a domino effect the department began to flip to the news channels to get the latest on the tragic death of Anna Nicole.
I remember watching CNN and their treatment of the story – you would have thought our country was going to war again with the volume and intensity of the coverage. Never mind the fact that this hard news entity was devoting so much time to someone that was famous, just for being famous.
But in the end the numbers (ratings) don’t lie, and here within lies your answer to erosion of gate keeping.
Lisa de Moraes of the Washington Post reports in her column posted on 2/15, “Anna Nicole Coverage Sweetens the Ratings Pot”, that “last Thursday, when Blitzer was standing in front of his Big Board of Moving Pictures, shepherding CNN's Anna Nicole coverage on "The Situation Room," he had an average audience of 1.7 million viewers -- nearly tripling his audience in the same hour the day before and beating Fox News Channel in the hour.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401813.html
So the question I pose to the rest of the class is, how would you classify the level of erosion of the gate keeping process? Do you think the major media outlets still make editorial decisions based on objective newsworthy events or what will bring in the best ratings? And do you believe that Obama’s decision to announce his candidacy for President this early will pay off through long-term exposure to the mass-media as a form of agenda setting to position himself as the “right” choice for President in the minds of voters?
16 comments:
Of course I think major media outlets still make editorial decisions based on objective newsworthy events for nothing more than to bring the best ratings. I don't want to sound cynical here but ratings = money. If CNN was to show their top story as a firefighter from Alabama rescuing a cat from a tree, people would not watch, their ratings would go down. Now I understand the cat example is a bit extreme but I hope you see what I am getting at.
Further, I think the coverage of famous people does indeed rate very high if not the highest on the list of priorities and interest/ news worthiness. The reason, because they are famous and what does famous mean? Simply that a lot of people know who you are and or have an interest in you life. What a better story to tell when you know the majority of America knows who it involves. The more famous, the more people, the more ratings, the more money.
Let’s take some other Celebes besides Smith as examples. Michael Kennedy who died in a plane crash, Paine Stewart, plane crash, Left Eye Lopez, plane crash. The tragic deaths of these people made top news. Sunny Bono’s death, top news. Normal citizens die in plane crashes and on ski slopes all the time, some do not even make it close to the news.
The stories of famous peoples' lives are used to make money everyday, why not use their deaths to make money as well?
I also agree with Steve when he says that the media makes decisions based on what news event will bring in the best ratings. Although airing news such as Anna Nicole's death is repetitive and people may think their is other news more important to watch, WE are responsible for what the media puts out. WE, the watchers, are the ones who give them their ratings and increase the money they make. I think we should be considered the gate keepers-- the media is simply putting out what we want to watch and ratings don't lie. As stated in one of the articles, "NBC's Nightly News devoted 14 seconds to Iraq compared to 3 minutes and 13 seconds to Anna Nicole. CNN referenced Anna Nicole 522% more frequently than it did Iraq. MSNBC was even worse -- 708% more references to Anna Nicole than Iraq."
The media isn't affecting the perception we have on issues-- they are just delivering what we ask for. Although they over report many issues, I believe the public has already formed their opinions-- even friends opinions influence people's perceptions. Therefore, I feel you can't blame the media for the coverage they put out..If they didn't put "none newsworthy" material out, we would complain.
Both Steve and Pam are correct. I was amazed by those numbers of the percent on Anna Nicole compared to Iraq.
But it makes sense because that is the kind of culture we live in today. Whether it be Anna Nicole dead or American Idol too mean that is what people want. They want that escape from reality. I realize Anna Nicole is as real as posbible but to many people because she is a reality star it almost seems not real. But for whatever reason it appeals, it appeals. Just like Steve said it doesnt matter who died, if they were celebrity they made big news.
I honestly believes it completely comes down to whats "cool" and pop culture is whats cool. So why would any news station go away from what is going to make them money in the long run. Give the people what they want or someone else will.Ma
Editorial decisions for newsworthy events have always come into play, but recently, I believe the amount of editorial decisions based solely on "newsworthiness" has tremendously decreased. The reason for the decrease is that many people don't want the news on TV anymore, because they can get it in other formats. They want other things from television. And digital cable and satellite TV, have given the people those other things to watch.
So now, the former big editorial decisions on what makes the news are virtually gone, because it's a ratings game. The gatekeepers are airing the stories that will sell. The conflict. The gossip. Such as the tragic death of Anna Nicole Smith.
I had a meeting with Ann Nyberg from News Channel 8 the other day, and she said everyone's ratings are going down. She blames this decrease on many things, but the increase in television channels is high on her list.
As for the 2008 presidential elections, Obama is basically doing the same thing. He's selling himself.
Candidates like Obama understand the influence the media has on the American people. So they are putting their names out there early, trying to permeate the minds of America, so voters flip their switch in the polls come election time.
I think these are all good points. Because of the increased competition news agencies have to deal with (whether it is cable news or the internet) there is increased pressure to compete for ratings. In the past when there were only a few news outlets, these people had much more control of what they show then today. I agree with the point made that the news agencies are at our mercy. Like Pam said "we should be considered the gatekeepers" because they are putting on the news they think we want to see. Now is that responsible? Is that the role of the media? Strictly to entertain. Maybe not. But with all the different outlets of news we do have a choice. But I like many of you, am also a frusterated viewer. I have my pick of what news broadcasts are good and which ones are useless. The local news is often comical in my mind as it focuses on what Steve said earlier about cats being stuck in trees.
It is easy to sit back and point the big foam finger at the media and declare the world is going down the tubes because of them. But as viewers we share this responsibility and until we turn off news coverage about a "celebrity" like Anna Nicole Smith dying, we will not see a change. We can sit on our high horses but in life when we make decisions we often consider the financial ramifications, why should a news agency be any different?
I think that the original point has been taken and run with. Whether or not she deserved it, Anna Nicole was a national figure. Whenever someone of celebrity status dies, this is the attention they get. We have a responsibility as young adults to not just wave out fingers at the media and say "this is more important than that." If you don't like it change the channel. the issue is, that regardless of how many people say "this is not what the media should be airing as important right now," we as avpublic are still watching. And I think that what we forget is that for the most part, the news media gets it right. The media entities providing non stop anna nicole smith coverage are the 24 hour news networks. If you look at any of the nightly network newscasts, the priorities are still there. It is the nature of democracy that politicians throw their names out this early, because regardless of their campaign tactics, it gives THE PEOPLE the opportunity, and in my opinion, responsibility to use the said media and find out momre abotu the candidate. With a few rare exceptions, most networks have been designed to show you the information and let you build your own opinion. The ignorant people in this country are the ones who let a man like Bill O'Reily craft their opinions for them. The media gatekeepers do an exceptional job.
I agree that the media networks' primary focus is to make money and therefore they air stories that they know will get the biggest ratings. People want to hear about Anna Nicole's life and death more than the war. The war is real life. They can look at Anna Nicole and think "Wow, my life might be stressful but at least I don't have her life". Politicians know ratings are the key and make sure they create as big a story as possible by holding a large event and giving people incentives to come. I do think they want to get their names out there early for a reason. If they are the first names people learn about, they will be the ones others are compared to and people will have a longer time to "get to know" them. After all, a lot of votes today are based more on the individual politicians likability than their stand points on important issues.
I also agree with steve and others posted. The media has a job, and it is to fed people with the most recent news. People die everyday but when a celebrity passes away it gets out and is made a much larger deal. That is definetly how society makes money. We are the ones who listen and watch what is put on television. It is our jobs to interpret what is given. I feel the reason the ratings were higher for her then Iraq is because in a way it is old news. People view the war differently but Anna Nicole is a celebrity and when they pass away it seems to be a huge deal. That is how society has and always will work.
As for the election, the people who are running for the next election have to find a way to sell themselves to the people. It is their way of trying to convince people to vote for them. Media has such a huge influence of society that they have to do certain things to try and better their chances of winning.
I enjoyed your selection. Political campaigning has always been a strong subject point. Gate keeping is important to any political race. Each candidate wants to be shed in the brightest purest light. I to find it funny how it is only 2007 and we are seeing campaigning going on television. I only hope that this up coming election will not be as intense as the Lamont race but with the way things are shaping up, I would not bet against it.
I think Barack Obama’s early campaigning might help or hinder his bid for the presidency. As anyone knows, the more time you spend with your name in the press, the more likely you are to have that very same name tarnished in one way or another. So, while he is getting more coverage and getting his ideas and intentions out to the public, he is at the same time running the risk of putting his foot in his mouth. He is, however, a great example of agenda setting as he is one of the first to start campaigning and as such is planting ideas in the minds of the public.
The power of public appeal has been analyzed and respected since President Lincoln, as the Rogers and Dearing article notes. Since President Kennedy we know that the television has had a presiding influence over this power. We see the analysis of public appeal now in the media every time there's an election.
There are interesting aspects to look at when we talk about the public appeal and how it is related to agenda setting: the "created" "pseudo" events, the events (limited to time and space) turned issues (cumulative coverage only limited to appeal), and total media content versus selective perception (as the Chapel Hill study examined in the McCombs and Shaw article).
The politicians of today know the power of public appeal and they utilize it, i.e. Obama's announcement to run for President. I think his early bid can be for good and bad. He will have plenty of time to put himself in the public eye which can have both positive and negative effects.
It appears that the media agenda is less of a reflection of the public agenda and more of a means to entertain the public at large. The news is seen as entertainment as well as information. The gatekeepers are therefore aware of this when making programming decisions. A good point was raised by Jared Zeidman, which gatekeepers are we examining: Those of cable news trying to fit 24 hours of news in every day or the nightly half hour of news 5 nights a week? Should there be a difference?
I think an additional aspect to take into consideration is the content that is being shown. Much of the talk is the analysis of the campaign rather than the issues. This pertains as well to the gatekeepers and what is shown via the media.
I think for those who view the gate-keepers as setting and controlling an agenda that is ‘faltering’ which most all of us have commented as pertinent, the selection of media should be better noted which would then affect the ratings and the public (viewers’) agenda.
There had been a whole shady drawn out scandal with Anna since the death of her son, maybe even before that, I'm not sure, but the whole thing wreaked to high heaven, and I believe that is one of the major reasons why it got so much attention. I believe that it would greatly benefit the upcoming presidential candidates if they could find some way to appeal to the masses in such a way that they would get more people, especially the younger voters, sucked into the political race like they (the young people) did with the whole Anna Nicole thing, and all the Hollywood type gossip that gets the most attention. Unfortunately scandal, drugs, embarrassment, and negative accusations seem to catch our attention more than anything else. I wonder if putting more of their money into TV and internet spots would benefit them more than touring does? I defiantly think that it is a smart move on the part of these politicians getting a head start. I believe the more familiar people are with their names, faces, and personas, the more they will they will trust them on some level…even if only a little, just for the sake of familiarity. A lot of people I know decide who they are going to vote for based more so on their perception of a candidates personality, than their political platform. This surprises me though since politician are always honest, keep their word, and maintain solid positions on issues, reflected in their voting on bills etc., 100% of the time…
The coverage for Anna Nicole Smith does not suprise me at all. The percentage of people who would rather see news on Entertainment, than hard news is astounding.
Our country cares more about celebrity news than it does about the 'real' news. How many blogs, and articles and pictures, and videos were posted about Britney Spears shaving her haed over the weekend? An unbelievable amount. I couldn't even get on the internet without seeing at least 3 new articles posted about the pop princess.
It is just the reality of our society.
On that note, I think that the presidential candidates who are campaigning now, for the upcoming (kind of far away...) election are wasting their time.
No one is interested now in who is running for president. They might watch just to see who the candidates are, but there is no way that the majority of people are paying attention to the issues they are supporting at this point in time.
Thanks to the internet, all they need is a few minutes to look up all the candidates before they go to vote!
I agree with the previous posting in this blog. Money is everything in this world and big stations like CNN want to choose to talk about the different events that are going to bring in the most ratings, therefore bringing in more money to the network. Like we discussed in class its funny to think that subjects like American Idol is much more talked about than the war in Iraq. The death of Anna Nicole Smith has also been made into a huge deal. Deaths of celebrities; or any deaths at all should be made into a big deal. I think another reason why this death inparticular is important is because there is still some mystery as to why she died.
In the readings they speak about how the media determines what are the important issues in our world and what we should pay attention to. We as adults can determine what we think are the important issues in our lives and in our world. I agree with Jared when he says "If you don't like it change the channel."
As mentioned in many of the posts Anna Nicole's death is a main focus in the news because she was so famous. Regardless of how she was famous, people want to feed into the juicy gossip of the how, where, when and why of the 'story'. Because she was so famous people may feel 'they knew her' or feel they had some connection with her. Obama and Hilary are heading towards having this 'fame' in order to gain the votes they would anticipate for the election in 2008. Obviously this fame will increase their votes in the fact that majority of Americans follow individuals who gain their attention just by being famous.
I think the reason we are so intrigued with the Anna Nicole thing is because most of society would rather hear the fluffy, scandalous news instead Iraq. I think because the events going on are half way around the world and the fact that it is a complicated war to understand, most people are turned off by it. So in turn, the media is obviously going to focus on what the people would rather watch and what gains the most rating. As for the Barak Obama issue, it will be very interesting to see how he does during the primary because you can't flip on any news station with out them metioning him.
-Katie
Post a Comment