A Test of Media-Centered Agenda Setting: Newspaper Content and Public Interests in a Presidential Election
- 1 September 1998
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Political Communication
- Vol. 15 (4) , 463-481
- https://doi.org/10.1080/105846098198849
Abstract
The conventional wisdom in political communications research is that the media play a dominant role in defining the agenda of elections. In Bernard Cohen's words, the media do not tell us what to think, but they tell us what to think about. The present article challenges this conclusion. We present data on media coverage of the 1992 presidential election from the first nationally representative sample of American newspapers and compare these to the issue interests of the American public. We conclude that past claims that the media control the agenda-setting process have been overstated. Candidates messages are well represented in press coverage of the campaign, and coverage is even independent of a newspaper's editorial endorsement. We argue that agenda setting is a transaction process in which elites, the media, and the public converge to a common set of salient issues that define a campaign.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Partisan Cues and the Media: Information Flows in the 1992 Presidential ElectionAmerican Political Science Review, 1998
- Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured ParadigmJournal of Communication, 1993
- Linear and nonlinear models of agenda‐setting in televisionJournal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 1992
- Medienwirkungen: Das dynamisch-transaktionale ModellPublished by Springer Nature ,1991
- Bifurcated PoliticsPublished by Harvard University Press ,1988
- Front-Page News and Real-World Cues: A New Look at Agenda-Setting by the MediaAmerican Journal of Political Science, 1980
- Another Look At the Agenda-Setting Function of the PressCommunication Research, 1974
- The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass MediaPublic Opinion Quarterly, 1972
- The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social communication.American Psychologist, 1964