No abstract

Research and theory on the media treatment and popularization of important social issues have many long traditions. The largest of these, agenda setting, has made its way over the years into newsrooms and think-tank analyses of public policy debates. And when the general public thinks about media effects, it almost always thinks o f agenda setting. Unfortunately, these popular conceptions often characterize agenda setting as something of an iron law rather than the subtle, highly contingent effect that years of careful research has shown it to be.During its first 25 years, the agenda-setting literature has grown to include more than 200 separate articles and more than a dozen books dealing specifically with this topic (Rogers, Dearing, & Bregman, 1993). The heuristic value of the agenda-setting perspective is undeniable, but heuristic value is not the only standard by which we judge the accomplishments of scientists. Agenda setting's key proponents have worked hard to expand its boundaries and scope, struggling valiantly to overcome the underspecified and constrained stimulus-response approach to media effects contained in agenda setting's original conceptualization. Researchers have amassed a large hody of empirical generalizations, but they have had trouble developing the ties to clear theories of society, news work, and human psychology that would allow the perspective to become truly useful as a theory accounting for issue evolution in society. Fortunately, scholars have made some progress on these fronts, albeit sometimes from outside of the field, and sometimes by shaking u p our normal scientific approach. What follows is an attempt to describe in broad terms the state of research in this area, to define the key problems, and to suggest a variety o f alternative perspectives that, if given the chance, will enrich the study of this topic domain.

No abstract

The period between August 1990 and early November 1992 was characterized by two “issue regimes,” the Gulf War and an economic recession. Analysis of aggregate media content and opinion poll data shows that President George Bush's job approval ratings were closely tied to the changes in the salience of these two issues. Guided by priming theory, hypotheses were formulated and tested concerning media effects on voters' evaluations of President Bush. Results show that the pattern of forming Bush's approval ratings is related to two different issue regimes. The total dominance of the public arena by one issue during an issue regime sets the foundation of Bush's overall approval ratings. However, direct media priming effects are found limited. Implications of these results are discussed.