One concept, many interpretations: the media’s causal roles in political agenda-setting processes

Abstract

While political agenda-setting scholars agree that the news media matter when it comes to agenda setting, surprisingly, there is no consensus on the exact role these media play in the agenda-setting process. In particular, causal interpretations of the media's role are diverse. This contribution focuses on this ambiguity in the agenda-setting field. First, it outlines the main reasons for the disagreement, both on a theoretical and on an empirical level. Second, it develops a theoretical model that helps to specify what role the news media play under various circumstances. Overall, the paper strongly encourages scholars to reflect more on causal mechanisms in political agenda-setting work, and makes a first attempt at facilitating the interpretation of extant and future findings.

Political Agenda Setting in the Hybrid Media System: Why Legacy Media Still Matter a Great Deal

“…For these elites, this was not “news,” there was no revelation from the media coverage (cf. Sevenans 2018). But the early coverage by The Guardian was important as a signal of a window of opportunity, and so was the attention and re-framing of the issue enabled by the digital petitions gathered by actors and technical artifacts in the campaign assemblage, including crowdsourced leaders (Papacharissi and de Fatima Oliveira 2012) and hybrid advocacy organizations.…”

“…Finally, it has become clear that rather than conceptualising this process as a battle of politicians against the media, it is more productive to understand it as actor-centred, i.e. a range of political actors trying to use the media strategically to advance their positions in intra-elite power battles (Sevenans, 2018;.…”

“…(2014), are identified by three criteria: a high level of attention (prominence), after an explosive increase (distinctiveness), with a certain duration (frequency). Finally, it has become clear that rather than conceptualizing this process as a battle of politicians against the media, it is more productive to understand it as actor-centered , that is, a range of political actors trying to use the media strategically to advance their positions in intra-elite power battles (Sevenans 2018; Van Aelst and Walgrave 2016). This includes politicians but also issue advocates such as corporations, interest groups, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).…”

Party ownership or individual specialization? A comparison of politicians’ individual issue attention across three different agendas

“…It is also important to note that the three agendas under study are not independent of one another. Research has already shown that there is a reciprocal relationship between, for example, the media agenda and the Twitter agenda of politicians (Conway et al, 2015; Conway-Silva et al, 2018; Harder et al, 2017) but also between the media agenda and the parliamentary agenda of politicians (Sevenans, 2018; Van Aelst and Vliegenthart, 2014). However, this reciprocal influence does not affect the degree of autonomy of the different agendas.…”

Selective Deafness of Political Parties: Strategic Responsiveness to Media, Protest and Real-World Signals on Immigration in Belgian Parliament

“…The first signal we consider is media attention. Sevenans (2018) specifies several specific tasks media signals can fulfill for parties. Media attention can reveal novel information about social problems, can reflect and influence public opinion, can create a window of opportunity to push long-held policy plans and can include frames that allow for critically assessing and targeting political opponents.…”