Agenda Setting

“Through this process many people have to decide whether or not the news is to be seen or heard. Some gatekeepers might include reporters, writers, and editors. After gatekeeping comes agenda setting."(Wilson, 2005).

The initial process of gatekeeping starts with what has been previously discussed here – it starts with news values. However –without agenda – news cannot exist. It is this agenda that gives news meaning, relevance and importance within society.

It has been said that ‘the press and the media do not reflect reality; they filter and shape it’.  There are four types of agenda that shapes our news:

1. PUBLIC AGENDA – topics that members of the public deem to be important.
2. POLICY AGENDA - topics that decision makers think are significant. (E.g. politicians)
3. CORPORATE AGENDA – topics that influential companies or corporate bodies deem important.
4. MEDIA AGENDA - topics discussed in media.

These agendas are all connected with each other, as topics frequently fit into some or all of the above agenda categories. Agendas dictate how and why the media presents news.

Bernard Cohen said, “The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.” In this, he is referring to the secondary level of agenda setting. Agenda setting is divided into first and secondary levels, the first being when the media advocates particular topics that they believe the general public should be concerned about, and secondary level agenda setting is how the media believes we should perceive an issue.

McCombs and Shaw conducted an integral study in 1968, when they decided to investigate agenda setting in mass media. At the time an American presidential campaign was taking place – so they decided to look at what the voters thought were important issues in the campaign, comparatively to what content the media was producing. After speaking to 100 undecided voters about their opinions, it became evident that the majority of their sample’s opinions were a result of (or could be related back to) how the mass media had portrayed topics in the news. If we apply these findings to the wider population, this study shows how the media really has the power to shape the opinions of its audience.

Welles unknowingly created widespread panic in 1938.

Other factors of agenda setting include ‘cutting’, ‘surfing’, diffusion, portrayal and media reliance. The media decide what is newsworthy – the media essentially chooses what our news is. This is cutting. Media outlets use ‘surfing’ – this is when media concentrates on popular or on-trend issues. Diffusion refers to when and how the media is released, and by whom. Portrayal refers to how an issue is depicted in the media, and media dependence is how much one is affected by media agenda. The more one actively seeks information through specific types of media, the more likely it is that that person will be susceptible to whatever agenda is decided by that media outlet.

There are some problems with agenda setting, such as the hypodermic needle theory, in which the audience is just a blank canvas that accepts all information provided by media. A good example of this is when Orson Welles preformed his radio show of ‘War Of The Worlds in 1938. One million Americans heard the broadcast radio play and believed that aliens were actually invading the earth. People panicked, raided grocery stores, fled and started to ration food.

Media Outlets have a range of tools at their fingertips, which shape how the public views an issue. News values paired with a range of tactics that is agenda setting can result in a variety of responses to a particular topic. For example, one publication can have their audience thinking one thing whereas another publication can have an entirely opposite point of view about the same topic. The audience we must be careful and be aware of how the media portrays certain topics in certain ways and why they do this – otherwise we can find ourselves with opinions that we aren’t really sure how they were formed to begin with.  

References: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory

http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20Clusters/Mass%20Media/Agenda-Setting_Theory.doc/

http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20Clusters/Mass%20Media/Hypodermic_Needle_Theory.doc/index.html

News Values

Andrew Boyd, Author of ‘Broadcast Journalism: Techniques of Radio and Television News’ has been cited as saying that, "News journalism has a broadly agreed set of values, often referred to as 'newsworthiness'...”

But what are these values? Julian Assange has previously said that ‘If journalism is good, it is controversial, by its nature.’ But controversy isn’t the only type of news – what are other things that make something newsworthy? Aside from following the inverted pyramid principle to write a story well, what are other factors that make a great news article?

In 1965, Johan Galtung and Mari Ruge conducted a study to establish what these principles are. That is, how we decide what is newsworthy, and what is therefore published in newspapers or broadcast as news. They discovered that newsworthiness can be divided into a set of principles, and the more principles that apply to the news story, the more likely it will be published or deemed as news worthy. Galtung and Ruge created a list of these factors, as well as three hypotheses as to how they work.

Galtung and Ruge decided that the following were the newsworthy principles:

1. ·      Negativity – Bad News. Anything involving death, destruction, disasters and so on.
2. ·      Proximity – Anything local. For example, The January floods were highly covered in Queensland where the event impacted locals.
3. ·      Recency – As soon as it happens. Now with convergent media this is more prevalent than ever, but if not careful can mean poorly researched/written journalism.
4. ·      Continuity – Something with continuing value such as a sport event. For example, continued coverage for the course of the Olympic games.
5. ·      Currency – Stories that have been in the public eye for a long time but are still current. For example, Continual news articles on the taboo abortion debate.
6. ·      Uniqueness – A story that captures a unique event, for example, ‘sloth learns to waterski’ would be a unique news subject.
7. ·      Simplicity – Stories that are straightforward, Not complex.
8. ·      Personality – To do with a person, common news value of human-interest stories.
9. ·      Expectedness – Does the story conform to previous conceptions about a topic? If so, it falls under this category.
10. ·      Elite Nations/People – Well known people or Nations. For example, What outrageous shenanigans Kim Jong Un/North Korea has been up to. Celebrity news also falls under this category.
11. ·      Size – The bigger the impact of the story. Can be impact to human life, business, politics, etc.
12. ·      Exclusivity – The first publication to break a story. In a world which news is available at any time and is constantly updated, exclusivity is a major news value.

Galtung and Ruge’s hypotheses state the three defining factors to which determine whether something is news worthy. The more of the aforementioned newsworthy factors an event fulfills, the possibility that it will become news is greatly increased. This is referred to as the additivity hypothesis. The factors will tend to exclude each other (this is the complementarity hypothesis) and the exclusion hypothesis states that events that satisfy none or very few factors it may not become news instead winding up in the cuttings on the editorial room floor.

Not all places in the world will we find certain things worthy of news. News values are also determined by culture and what any given society rates as valuable information. However, the above values were the first real basis of how we determine whether or not something is newsworthy and at least some of them should apply anywhere in the world. Since their original study in 1965, Galtung and Ruge’s newsworthy principles have been revised and formed a basis for many other principles written by other media commentators. As well as some of the original values, Golding and Elliot’s news values include ‘visual attractiveness’ which has become relevant due to the shift to online media and video journalism, O’Neill & Harcup officially state ‘entertainment’ as a news value, and McGregor added ‘celebrification of the journalist’ (although I am yet to see that last one when the journalist is still alive, which is a bit disconcerting).

All of these other news values are valid points, and all can be applied to news today. Like Galtung and Ruge suggest, the more news values a story fits – the better. However, as journalists we do not own the audience so we cannot actually solely decide what is relevant news for our audience. We must be careful to be a mere channel from which information can flow through to our audience. We must not let our own (personal or commercial) bias influence this.

Due to the internet and social networking sites, the audience can effectively seek or publish their own news. Bill Kovach, American journalist and former Washington bureau chief of The New York Times said ‘If we're going to live as we are in a world of supply and demand, then journalists had better find a way to create a demand for good journalism.’ In order to ensure that we as journalists remain relevant we need to maintain high standards of journalism. Our news values need to remain high. Our accountability, reliability, fact checking, in-depth research and accuracy need to be constantly vigilant, otherwise we risk destroying our own media world and careers.  We must avoid bias at all costs. Otherwise the journalist in todays’ world of new media may not survive. 

Violent Video Depicts Cruelty - Knackery Will Not Be Charged

Live horse being dragged to the kill floor at Laverton Pet Supplies

A Melbourne knackery that was accused of cruelty and the sadistic slaughter of horses will escape prosecution as the RSPCA has decided that the covert footage caught by an undercover activist is not sufficient to lay charges.

The covert film (which can be viewed here, but is extremely graphic so viewer beware) was shot by an undercover agent from animal rights group the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses, has resulted in an official complaint to the Victorian meat regulators. This complaint instigated enquiries into Laverton Pet Meats’ business practices by the RSPCA and PrimeSafe (the Victorian meat safety and health authority).

In the footage, two horses are shot and dragged across the ground to the kill floor. One of which continued to breathe for four minutes, until it was gored in the chest by one of the meat workers, leaving it to hemorrhage and spasm before taking its last breath.

Ward Young, from the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses is disturbed by this lack of action. He said "I don't know whether the knackery has to drag half-dead horses to their doorstep before they prosecute…if something of this nature, which was so distressing, couldn't get a prosecution, what can?"

Up to 18,000 horses die in Australia per yet at the knackery

This abhorrent disregard for life has not gone unnoticed. As the name of ‘Laverton Pet Meats’ is splashed across the media with damning condemnation, Zoos Victoria has decided to take its business elsewhere, denouncing the inhumane slaughter of these racehorses. However, this is not an isolated incident as thousands of horses are slaughtered for pet meat every year in Australia. Ward Young tells us the number “is as high as 18,000 horses…as it stands, there is no solution for the thousands of racehorses who leave the industry each year because they are injured or not competitive. Most will end up at slaughter.”

This case has fuelled a current campaign run by the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses, which urges the racing industry to contribute 1% of betting turnover into forming a racehorse retirement program. 1% of revenue equates to about 143 million dollars per year, and the public agree that that sum is more than enough to take care of these graceful creatures once their racing career is over – over 24,000 people have signed a petition that says that they agree a retirement and welfare program should be put into place.

Racehorses often suffer from significant bone problems as they are generally started on the track before their bones have finished developing. Sometimes there are injuries before they have even had their first start – these horses end up at the knackery, as they are no longer profitable. Even winners – such as Natures Child in the video – end up at the knackery. It is widely accepted knowledge that in Australia, 300 of 1000 Thoroughbred foals that are born actually make it to the track [1],[2].

"The racing industry can't say they love these horses and then the next day when they can no longer earn money, send them to the knackery to get killed for dog meat… (their) actions speaks louder than their words.” Mr. Young has commented.

The RSPCA may state that the evidence provided to them was not sufficient enough to lay charges, but it was sufficient enough to bring this matter to the general public’s attention.  The unnecessary slaughter of thousands of horses has to stop, and the public agrees. The change.org petition set up by Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses needs 1,441 more signatures to reach its 25,000-signature goal before it will be forwarded to racing and sporting ministers across the country.  Sign the petition here, and speak up for someone who can’t.

References:

http://ymlp.com/zisPG5

http://www.horseracingkills.com/wastage/

http://www.change.org/petitions/australian-racing-industry-racehorses-aren-t-pet-food-create-an-owners-levy-to-fund-a-horse-welfare-plan

http://ymlp.com/zAXOH1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5quRrEsoYc&feature=youtu.be

http://www.smh.com.au/national/knackery-video-rspca-wont-press-charges-20130315-2g4tz.html

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/slaughter-of-horses-causes-outrage-20121212-2ba3l.html

[1]Bourke, J.M. (1995) Wastage in Thoroughbreds. In: Proceedings from Annual Seminar of Equine Branch, NZVA, Ed: G. Budge, Masey University, Auckland. pp 107-120.


[2] Bailey, C.J., Reid, S.W.J., Hodgson, D.R. and Rose, R.J. (1999) Factors associated with time until first race and career duration for Thoroughbred racehorses. American Journal of Veterinary Research60, 1196-12