Loading...

Agendamelding

News, Social Media, Audiences, and Civic Community

by Donald L. Shaw (Author) Milad Minooie (Author) Deb Aikat (Author) Chris J. Vargo (Author)
©2019 Textbook XX, 234 Pages

Summary

Agendamelding: News, Social Media, Audiences, and Civic Community builds on the premise that people construct civic community from the information that they seek—as well as the information that seeks them—to trace the processes by which we mix, or meld, agendas from various sources into a coherent picture of the civic community in which we live. Using the presidential elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016, this book tests a formula that allows us to predict how potential voters lean towards communities in which they feel comfortable—for example, Republican, Democratic, or Independent. These analyses take into account differences in the use of traditional news media vs. social media among media consumers, as well as varying levels of press freedom across national populations.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the author(s)/editor(s)
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Contents
  • List of Illustrations
  • List of Tables
  • Foreword (David H. Weaver / Maxwell E. McCombs)
  • Preface
  • Acknowledgments
  • Chapter 1. Living in Melded Community
  • Chapter 2. Agenda Setting
  • Chapter 3. Agendamelding
  • Chapter 4. From Media Agenda Setting to Audience Agendamelding in the 2016 Presidential Election
  • Chapter 5. Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney: Agendamelding in the 2012 Presidential Election
  • Chapter 6. Agendamelding in the 2008 and Earlier Presidential Elections
  • Chapter 7. Civic Values, Agendamelding, and Democracy in the World
  • Chapter 8. Testing Agendamelding in Iran: Alternative Communities in a Country Where the State Controls the Media
  • Chapter 9. The Future of Agendamelding
  • Glossary
  • Appendix A: List of Twitter Accounts of Conservative, Liberal, and Traditional Media Sources
  • Index
  • Series index

| ix →

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1.1: Trump’s Tweet Frequency January 2017−December 2018

Figure 1.2: Number of Commercial Television Stations in the United States From 1950 to 2017

Figure 1.3: Circulation of Weekday and Sunday Newspapers in the United States From 1950 to 2017

Figure 1.4: Number of Available Websites From 1992 to 2017

Figure 2.1: A Model of Agenda Setting Level 1

Figure 2.2: A Model of Agenda Setting Level 2

Figure 2.3: A Model of Agenda Setting Level 3 (NAS)

Figure 2.4: Antecedents of Need for Orientation

Figure 2.5: Contrasting Agenda Communities

Figure 3.1: The Percentage of News Platforms by Age Group in the U.S. in 2018

Figure 3.2: Distribution of Monthly Newspaper Reach in the United States in 2016, by Age Group

Figure 3.3: Television and Streaming Service Consumption Among Viewers in the United States as of October 2017, by Age Group

Figure 3.4: Percentage of Adults in the United States Who Use Social Networks as of January 2018, by Age Group← ix | x →

Figure 3.5: Three Sources of Information

Figure 3.6: Dynamics of Agendamelding

Figure 4.1: Voters and Media: Correlational Relationships

Figure 4.2: Correlations by the Number of Key Issues in the 2016 Presidential Election Across Time

Figure 4.3: Correlations of Key Issues in the 2016 Presidential Election Between October and the Week of the Election

Figure 4.4: Progression of Correlational Values for Democratic-Leaning Twitter Users in 2016

Figure 4.5: Progression of Correlational Values for Republican-Leaning Twitter Users in 2016

Figure 4.6: Carter’s Paradigm of Affective Relations in an Orientation Situation

Figure 4.7: ACA for Democratic-Leaning Twitter Users During the 2016 Campaign

Figure 4.8: ACA for Republican-Leaning Twitter Users During the 2016 Campaign

Figure 5.1: Voters and Media: Correlational Relationships

Figure 5.2: Correlations of Key Issues in the 2012 Presidential Election Between October and the Week of the Election

Figure 5.3: Progression of Correlational Values for Democratic-Leaning Twitter Users in 2012

Figure 5.4: Progression of Correlational Values for Republican-Leaning Twitter Users in 2012

Figure 5.5: Obama’s Associative Issue Ownership Network Perceived by Democratic-Leaning Users During the Week of the 2012 Election

Figure 5.6: Romney’s Associative Issue Ownership Network Perceived by Republican-Leaning Users During the Week of the 2012 Election

Figure 5.7: ACA for Democratic-Leaning Twitter Users During the 2012 Campaign

Figure 5.8: ACA for Republican-Leaning Twitter Users During the 2012 Campaign

Figure 6.1: ACA for Democratic, Republican, and Independent Voters During the 2008 Campaign

Figure 6.2: Agenda Community Attraction, The Election of 1968

Figure 6.3: ACA for College-Educated vs. Non-College-Educated Voters in 1972 ← x | xi →

Figure 6.4: ACA for the Three-State Studies of 1976

Figure 7.1: Agenda Community Attraction (ACA) Among Nations in 2016

Figure 7.2: ACA Among Traditional Agenda Dominant Nations in 2016

Figure 7.3: ACA Among Transitional Agenda Nations in 2016

Figure 7.4: ACA Among Alternative Agenda Dominant Nations in 2016

Figure 7.5: ACA of Nations and Political Stability

Figure 8.1: Hypothetical and Actual ACA Values in Iran, 2015

Figure 9.1: Components of Agendamelding

| xiii →

TABLES

Table 4.1: Correlational Values for Democratic-Leaning Twitter Users in 2016

Table 4.2: Correlational Values for Republican-Leaning Twitter Users in 2016

Table 4.3: Changes in the Salience of 16 Issues Over Time

Table 5.1: Correlational Values for Democratic-Leaning Twitter Users in 2012

Table 5.2: Correlational Values for Republican-Leaning Twitter Users in 2012

Table 5.3: Changes in the Salience of 16 Issues in the 2012 Campaign Over Time

Table 6.1: Salient Issues of Traditional/Vertical Media and Social/Horizontal Media in 2008

Table 6.2: Traditional/Vertical vs. Social/Horizontal Media-Audience Correlations, 2008

Table 7.1: List of Countries Based on the 2016 Freedom in the World Ranking

Table 7.2: Selected Countries From the ACA Table, 2016

Table 8.1: Ranking of Traditional Media Agenda Compared With Public Agenda ← xiii | xiv →

Table 8.2: Ranking of Social Media Agenda (Community Agenda) Compared With Public Agenda

Table 8.3: Differences Between Public Agenda and Personal Preference

Table 8.4: Traditional and Social Media Agenda-Setting Correlations

Table 8.5: Agendamelding, Actual and Theoretical

| xv →

FOREWORD

By David H. Weaver and Maxwell E. McCombs

This book is the culmination of a 20-year research program by Professor Donald Shaw, one of the original pioneers of agenda-setting research, that looks at agenda setting mainly from the perspective of the news audience instead of the effects of news media—a process that he has called agendamelding to distinguish it from other media agenda-setting research that is focused more on the influence of media agendas on public priorities.

The focus of this book, as he puts it, is on “the way audiences blend messages from traditional and social media (including other people) into more personal renditions of civic life. …” In exploring this focus in beautifully written detail, Shaw has linked agenda-setting research firmly with the uses and gratifications approach to mass communication research that asks what people do with media rather than what media do to people.

He has also added a seventh stage to agenda-setting research that now includes six stages or facets: (1) basic object agenda setting, (2) attribute agenda setting, (3) network agenda setting, (4) the psychology of agenda setting, (5) the consequences of agenda setting, and (6) the origins of the media agenda.

In doing so, he has made clearer the limits of media agenda setting and expanded our understanding of why media agendas sometimes are reflected in audience agendas and sometimes not—and why audiences sometimes seek ← xv | xvi → guidance about which issues and topics are most and least important from media sources and sometimes from other sources such as family, friends and various groups.

In the 50-year history of agenda-setting research and theory, this agendamelding approach is more relevant today than ever, given the increased complexity of the media landscape and the ability of people to choose very different patterns of media consumption. Now, much more than 50 years ago in 1968 when the first agenda-setting study was done in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, there are so many different sources of media content and so many more opportunities to choose from these sources, making selective exposure and selective perception more relevant than ever before.

Details

Pages
XX, 234
Year
2019
ISBN (PDF)
9781433164972
ISBN (ePUB)
9781433164989
ISBN (MOBI)
9781433164996
ISBN (Hardcover)
9781433165009
ISBN (Softcover)
9781433165016
DOI
10.3726/b15023
Language
English
Publication date
2019 (October)
Published
New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Oxford, Wien, 2019. XX, 234 pp., 42 b/w ill., 15 tables

Biographical notes

Donald L. Shaw (Author) Milad Minooie (Author) Deb Aikat (Author) Chris J. Vargo (Author)

Donald L. Shaw, a journalism historian and theorist, earned his PhD from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He is coauthor, with Maxwell E. McCombs, of the 1968 agenda-setting study in Chapel Hill, published in Public Opinion Quarterly in 1972. Milad Minooie (assistant professor, Kennesaw State University) specializes in media effects and new media research. A former journalist, Dr. Minooie earned his MA in communication from the University of Texas at Arlington and his PhD from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Deb Aikat (associate professor, UNC-Chapel Hill), a former journalist, theorizes digital media. The Scripps Howard Foundation recognized him as the inaugural winner of the National Journalism Teacher of the Year (2003). He earned a PhD in media and journalism from Ohio University’s E.W. Scripps School of Journalism. Chris J. Vargo (assistant professor, University of Colorado Boulder) specializes in analytics in mass communication. Dr. Vargo has a PhD from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, an MA from the University of Alabama, and a BA from Pennsylvania State University.

Previous

Title: Agendamelding
book preview page numper 1
book preview page numper 2
book preview page numper 3
book preview page numper 4
book preview page numper 5
book preview page numper 6
book preview page numper 7
book preview page numper 8
book preview page numper 9
book preview page numper 10
book preview page numper 11
book preview page numper 12
book preview page numper 13
book preview page numper 14
book preview page numper 15
book preview page numper 16
book preview page numper 17
book preview page numper 18
book preview page numper 19
book preview page numper 20
book preview page numper 21
book preview page numper 22
book preview page numper 23
book preview page numper 24
book preview page numper 25
book preview page numper 26
book preview page numper 27
book preview page numper 28
book preview page numper 29
book preview page numper 30
book preview page numper 31
book preview page numper 32
book preview page numper 33
book preview page numper 34
book preview page numper 35
book preview page numper 36
book preview page numper 37
book preview page numper 38
book preview page numper 39
book preview page numper 40
256 pages