Agenda building describes the ongoing process by which various groups attempt to transfer their interests to be the interests of public policymakers. [1] Conceptualized as a political science theory by Cobb and Elder in 1971, [2] "the agenda-building perspective...alerts us to the importance of the environing social processes in determining what occurs at the decision-making stage and what types of policy outcomes will be produced.” It focuses on the relationship between society and policy maker. [3]
Classic democratic theory focused on the assumption that calls on “public policymakers to advance the interests of civically engaged constituents, by an autonomous press [4]” (i.e. classic theory focuses on the policy makers and media), however, it failed to account for points at which larger society of stakeholders could define the range of alternatives available for policy making. [2]
Agenda building rests on two primary assumptions (Cobb & Elder):
"Firstly, the attention capabilities of government are necessarily limited. There are always more matters vying for attention than can be actively considered. Secondly, policy problems are not a priori givens but rather are matters of definition. Whether a particular situation or set of circumstances constitutes a problem and is an appropriate matter of "public" concern depends upon not just facts but upon beliefs and values. [5]"
Other assumptions include, but are not limited to:
Scholars applying the agenda-building approach to research questions frequently identify the sources of the agenda building and the compare the resulting discourse to the sender's message, whether it is media coverage or policy. For example, Nisbet, Brossard, & Kroepsch, [7] tracked media coverage; results showed that the George W. Bush administration was successful in driving coverage of the stem cell research controversy.
Cobb, Ross & Ross proposed four primary steps in agenda building: [1]
Agenda building, a concept found both in political science and communication scholarship, is distinct from, yet related to, agenda setting. However, the terms are frequently ill-defined: Berkowitz suggests, for example, applying the term agenda setting to situations regarding the effect of the media on the public and applying policy agenda building to situations that regard the perceptions of policymakers and how these perceptions are formed. [3]
Scholars generally agree on the basic principles of agenda building, but as also noted above, the terminology is not agreed upon. Denham proposes a direction-specific typology to studying agenda building, and he uses the terms 1) policy agenda building, 2) media agenda-building, 3) public agenda building, and 4) intermedia agenda building. [4] In all types, media is a key player.
Missing from Denhams’s typology is an account of how policymakers directly use media to build their own agendas (policymaker -> media -> public). Political actors need journalists to spread their message just as much as journalists need stories to write. [12] Cook calls this “the negotiation of newsworthiness;” together journalists and sources (and occasionally others) interact to determine what is covered in the press, and how that content is presented. [13] Policymakers hold a particular structural advantage in promoting their interests, particularly because they are reliable sources of news. [14]
Regardless of agenda-building type, modern scholarship is beginning to expand the scope of what is considered media, and how the expanded universe of media will impact agenda building. Popular interactive platforms such as blogs, Facebook, and Twitter have become the conduit for the large-scale public interaction. The increased role of citizens signals a new direction for agenda-building research, given that the Internet has distributed the means of information production and fragmented the information environment, marking a shift in the power from legacy media to build monolithic agendas to anyone with the ability to get online. [15]
Several studies show that agenda building effects occur in the digital age. YouTube influenced coverage of California's Proposition 8, and, possibly, impacted the referendum. [16] Parmalee focused on agenda-setting and Twitter by interviewing journalists; he found that Twitter is a regular part of their routine. [17] Wallsten compared media coverage and blog discussion; results showed that journalists concerns matched blogger concerns. [18] Jacobson found that comments on Rachel Maddow's Facebook page influenced the broadcast. [19] In the scientific context, Runge, Brossard, Scheufele, & Xenos [20] found that social media played a key role in defining the "pink slime" issue, and the industry had to defend what they normally call “lean finely textured beef.”
There is also anecdotal evidence of digital agenda building:
Scholars are now starting to address what agenda building means, and what impact it has, when both machines and human beings set the agenda. Algorithms, such as the ranking algorithms in use at Facebook, apply previous online behavior to predict future interests to serve personalized content; the underlying, unseen algorithm manifests itself in the form of what information is presented to the viewer. [25] The impact of algorithmic editorial decision-making, particularly at Facebook, is immense: “...the results of [the] automated linking process shape the social lives and reading habits of more than 1 billion daily active users - one-fifth of the world’s adult population...it can be tweaked to make us happy or sad; it can expose us to new and challenging ideas or insulate us in ideological bubbles. [26]" Facebook downplays its role as publisher, but given that Facebook has become a major distributor of news, that platforms such as Facebook are “just the pipes” is an increasingly untenable stance to take. [27]
Algorithmic determinism of news has not been without controversy. For example, Facebook recently came under fire for censoring the “Napalm girl” photo of Phan Thị Kim Phuc (they blamed the algorithm), [28] it conducted an emotional contagion experiment on users without their knowledge, [25] and it has been accused of liberal bias [29]
Agenda building describes the ongoing process by which various groups attempt to transfer their interests to be the interests of public policymakers. [1] Conceptualized as a political science theory by Cobb and Elder in 1971, [2] "the agenda-building perspective...alerts us to the importance of the environing social processes in determining what occurs at the decision-making stage and what types of policy outcomes will be produced.” It focuses on the relationship between society and policy maker. [3]
Classic democratic theory focused on the assumption that calls on “public policymakers to advance the interests of civically engaged constituents, by an autonomous press [4]” (i.e. classic theory focuses on the policy makers and media), however, it failed to account for points at which larger society of stakeholders could define the range of alternatives available for policy making. [2]
Agenda building rests on two primary assumptions (Cobb & Elder):
"Firstly, the attention capabilities of government are necessarily limited. There are always more matters vying for attention than can be actively considered. Secondly, policy problems are not a priori givens but rather are matters of definition. Whether a particular situation or set of circumstances constitutes a problem and is an appropriate matter of "public" concern depends upon not just facts but upon beliefs and values. [5]"
Other assumptions include, but are not limited to:
Scholars applying the agenda-building approach to research questions frequently identify the sources of the agenda building and the compare the resulting discourse to the sender's message, whether it is media coverage or policy. For example, Nisbet, Brossard, & Kroepsch, [7] tracked media coverage; results showed that the George W. Bush administration was successful in driving coverage of the stem cell research controversy.
Cobb, Ross & Ross proposed four primary steps in agenda building: [1]
Agenda building, a concept found both in political science and communication scholarship, is distinct from, yet related to, agenda setting. However, the terms are frequently ill-defined: Berkowitz suggests, for example, applying the term agenda setting to situations regarding the effect of the media on the public and applying policy agenda building to situations that regard the perceptions of policymakers and how these perceptions are formed. [3]
Scholars generally agree on the basic principles of agenda building, but as also noted above, the terminology is not agreed upon. Denham proposes a direction-specific typology to studying agenda building, and he uses the terms 1) policy agenda building, 2) media agenda-building, 3) public agenda building, and 4) intermedia agenda building. [4] In all types, media is a key player.
Missing from Denhams’s typology is an account of how policymakers directly use media to build their own agendas (policymaker -> media -> public). Political actors need journalists to spread their message just as much as journalists need stories to write. [12] Cook calls this “the negotiation of newsworthiness;” together journalists and sources (and occasionally others) interact to determine what is covered in the press, and how that content is presented. [13] Policymakers hold a particular structural advantage in promoting their interests, particularly because they are reliable sources of news. [14]
Regardless of agenda-building type, modern scholarship is beginning to expand the scope of what is considered media, and how the expanded universe of media will impact agenda building. Popular interactive platforms such as blogs, Facebook, and Twitter have become the conduit for the large-scale public interaction. The increased role of citizens signals a new direction for agenda-building research, given that the Internet has distributed the means of information production and fragmented the information environment, marking a shift in the power from legacy media to build monolithic agendas to anyone with the ability to get online. [15]
Several studies show that agenda building effects occur in the digital age. YouTube influenced coverage of California's Proposition 8, and, possibly, impacted the referendum. [16] Parmalee focused on agenda-setting and Twitter by interviewing journalists; he found that Twitter is a regular part of their routine. [17] Wallsten compared media coverage and blog discussion; results showed that journalists concerns matched blogger concerns. [18] Jacobson found that comments on Rachel Maddow's Facebook page influenced the broadcast. [19] In the scientific context, Runge, Brossard, Scheufele, & Xenos [20] found that social media played a key role in defining the "pink slime" issue, and the industry had to defend what they normally call “lean finely textured beef.”
There is also anecdotal evidence of digital agenda building:
Scholars are now starting to address what agenda building means, and what impact it has, when both machines and human beings set the agenda. Algorithms, such as the ranking algorithms in use at Facebook, apply previous online behavior to predict future interests to serve personalized content; the underlying, unseen algorithm manifests itself in the form of what information is presented to the viewer. [25] The impact of algorithmic editorial decision-making, particularly at Facebook, is immense: “...the results of [the] automated linking process shape the social lives and reading habits of more than 1 billion daily active users - one-fifth of the world’s adult population...it can be tweaked to make us happy or sad; it can expose us to new and challenging ideas or insulate us in ideological bubbles. [26]" Facebook downplays its role as publisher, but given that Facebook has become a major distributor of news, that platforms such as Facebook are “just the pipes” is an increasingly untenable stance to take. [27]
Algorithmic determinism of news has not been without controversy. For example, Facebook recently came under fire for censoring the “Napalm girl” photo of Phan Thị Kim Phuc (they blamed the algorithm), [28] it conducted an emotional contagion experiment on users without their knowledge, [25] and it has been accused of liberal bias [29]