Talk:Agenda-setting theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] added cleanup tag
I added a cleanup tag because the parts about powerful and weak effects models seem pretty confusing and lacking in context -- the sentence "Hence, weak effects models make intuitive sense." certainly doesn't make intuitive sense to me. Joriki 13:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] weaknesses of the theory
This article strikes me as biased. There is a discussion of the theory's strengths but not of its weaknesses. Perhaps this would be appropriate for completeness if nothing else. For example, is the evidence accumulated consistent with the hypothesis that media cover issues because they are important to many members of "the public"? This question seems obvious to me and yet is is not addressed in the article. It needs to be addressed because this hypothesis is opposed to the idea that people think issues are important because they hear about them in the media (i.e. the agenda setting hypothesis
Additionally/Alternatively, perhaps something about the extent to which/how public opinion feedsback on agenda setting. Ex. Positive feedback: Whereby at the second level for instance an issue in the media is initially presented with moderately negative affective characteristics. This colours public opinion unusually effectively and the media (which must be responsive to public opinion to an extent to retain/enlarge its viewer base) responds by presenting the issue with increasingly negative effective characteristics. (Snowball effect) Scholar1984 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Scholar1984
Where's John Kingdon? Egads, what a skimpy, pathetic article.
