Whether we decide to sit in front of the television to watch the afternoon news or at our tables to read the newspaper, it is usually the larger stories which we see first, that we identify as having the most importance in the media. During the television commercials we flick through different channels, and see that these stories are also being portrayed on other news networks; with repetition they start to gain more and more importance to us, and the rest of the Australian public.
In shorter terms, the media selectively influences our opinions and interests by deciding which issues gain the most public prominence. The more emphasis a story is given, the more importance it gains to the viewers. One of the most common examples of agenda setting would have to be prevalent amongst politics, in which most of the public’s voting decisions are based on what is presented in the media. Agenda setting can help to influence political change, as well as social belief and practices etc.
The example below recognises three stories on the same housing issue in Australia, which could result in social change by influencing the public’s decisions before they buy or sell their house. Australia’s two most popular capital cities (Sydney and Melbourne) are mentioned in the headings of two of the articles to help attract the most amount of interest. The issue then gains significance through its recurrence.
From left to right – Business Insider Australia, The Daily Telegraph, and The Australian Financial Review.
Time to buy a car, and all of a sudden you’re particularly noticing the advertisements and billboards that feature cars? About to have a baby, and suddenly you’re ears perk up when you hear a story on pregnancy? This is because people are more likely to pay attention to information that is relevant to their lives at the time.
An audience interprets, selects and even restricts media messages. Therefore, people are more likely to notice information that they identify with, than information that will change their attitudes. The situational theory of publics, therefore, leads communication practitioners to distinguish active segments of a population (i.e. active or aware publics) from less active ones (i.e. latent publics or non-publics) to avoid cost-effective communication (e.g. mass-oriented campaigns; Grunig, 1989; Grunig & Hunt, 1984).
Consequently, people that live in Sydney and Melbourne, plus people who live or want to live in an apartment, are more likely to interpret the three stories mentioned above. The story mentions two capital cities, because this is where it’s most active public are.
As we can also see from the three stories above, they are all about the same issue, but the headings are different, plus they each highlight distinct aspects. The latter two concentrate more specifically on a region, whereas the first is broader. The indicated price drops in each story will help to influence buyers and in a positive way, whereas it is likely to help hinder people looking to sell their apartments.
This is because the media ‘positions’ a message in a precise way to get a certain response. The media knows its audience’s social and cultural values and uses this to create a particular reaction. A story can be framed positively, negatively or neutrally, depending on its public’s preference.
The last story preferred to highlight the positive factor of house growth in Melbourne, to draw people’s attention towards that area. The first story will draw the most attention, by using the heading to draw attention to the biggest issue, and the second article answers ‘why’. Certain cities, images and words are used throughout each story to draw the most attention from varying publics, these stories are created by identifying our values to attract as many interested reader’s as possible and to construct concern.
These three methods are popular, and proven theories that help the media and promotional cultures to produce content.
The Urban Edit 