Agenda Setting and Climate Change Essay Example

as scholars hope to better understand the relationship between media and public. In order to understand the present, it is useful to understand past ideas that led to the current theory. Lazarsfeld and Merton (1948) were among the first scholars to engage in research regarding functions of mass media and the way they contribute to social trends. Although their theory has been expanded and refined today, it is widely recognized as one of the essential works for studying mass communication. The two described three functions of the media: status conferral, enforcement of social norms, and narcotizing dysfunction, with the status conferral function evolving into the agenda setting theory adopted today. They define the function as the way media legitimize the status of individuals and groups. The general public looks to the media for guidance on what issues, people, and movements are important (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1948). Inherent in the media’s existence are these functions. Based on these objectives, the idea of climate change has been legitimized just by appearing in channels of mass communication. Status conferral is a vital part of the agenda setting effect.

The media not only display reality but ultimately alter the public’s perception of it. Audiences learn the gravity of a situation based on the amount information in a news story (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). Mass media determine the important issues, therefore influencing what is on one’s mind. While they do not form our opinion on an issue, they plant the topics of central importance. An empirical study investigating the 1968 presidential campaign found that the media set the agenda for both campaigns, dictating what issues a candidate would need to cover,

and what they could ignore. It found a high correlation between what the media covered and what voters thought were the key issues (McCombs & Shaw 1972). While the study concedes that it did not include enough psychological variables, the investigation provides strong evidence for the agenda setting function of media, and the basis for all subsequent research.

Evidence for Agenda Setting

This section will describe instances where the agenda setting function of media worked to shift public priorities while still acknowledging that public apathy towards climate change has not been fully alleviated.

Public Opinion

The American public recognizes that climate change exists but feels little anxiety about it on a day-to-day basis. According to a report from the New York Times, the average citizen does not believe the earth’s warming will personally affect them. Rather than perceive it as a true risk, people appreciate it solely in a conceptual manner. 63% of the public agree that climate change is occurring, but their agreement ends there. Only one-third of Americans say they discuss global warming at least occasionally with friends (Popovich, Schwartz, & Schlossberg, 2017). Likewise, the selection of climate change in response to the Gallup ‘Most Important Problem’ survey question rarely exceeds 3% of respondents (Brulle, Carmichael, & Jenkins, 2012). Apathy plagues the general public.

Function and Success

The agenda setting function for this topic works as follows: media translate climate change into a sequence of events – events being relevant, everyday experiences – thus fitting their idea of worthwhile news. Examining media discourse is difficult due to natural programmatic differences. A key assumption of agenda setting is that changed priorities of media will influence policy decisions. When presented with

investigative content about a decisive issue, policy priorities will shift as a result of what was viewed on television (Cook et al., 1983). Likewise, policymakers exposed to the same media investigation changed their views of the issue’s importance and became convinced that policy action was necessary. When interviewed before and after viewing a program relating to the topic of home health care programs and fraud, the responses show that audiences cared more deeply about the topic after viewing. While more nuanced media effects can be equally attributed here, the agenda setting effect nonetheless occurred. Although the topic was not climate change, the results of the Cook et al. study can be generalized.

While a plethora of studies confirm that lack of mass media coverage contributes to apathy, some come up with a different set of findings. There is no effect between media attention and congressional attention to climate change (Liu, Lindquist, & Vedlitz 2011). While US congress may differ from the general public, the study hypothesizes that the agenda-setting effect still functions in the same way. In a comparison of how many articles the New York Times published on the topic of climate change and how many congressional hearings were held on the issue over the period of 1969 to 2005, the number of climate hearings stayed stagnant at about eight per year. The reasons for this vary and cannot be attributed to media coverage or lack thereof.

Criteria for the News Agenda

Media content and audiences are linked intimately. In order to raise attention to the cause of climate change, it is necessary to understand the criteria for appearing in the news agenda. It appears that the

field has reached a general consensus that focusing events are the best indicator of if something will make the media agenda. Focusing events are dramatic or uncommon events which elicit the ‘focus’ of mass media and associated audiences. They are timely and often sensational, due to their dramatic nature. A long-term study by Liu, Lindquist, and Vedlitz (2011) observed that these events receive more coverage than those that are less novel. They find that the more severe the problem the more coverage is received. Climate change does not occur on a scale with opportune timing. It exists and occurs on a more long-term timeline.

Other studies offer expanded reasons for why climate change has failed to fully make the news agenda. Pure scientific information is not attractive for a media that prefers timeliness, human interest, and often sensationalism (Weingart, Engels & Pansegrau, 2000). The media often look to cover strictly events rather than concepts. Under this model, if there is inaction from the public people conclude it must be the fault of inaccurate scientific information and not ineffective agenda setting. A study in Germany from 1975 to 1987 looked at the number of articles published in Der Spiegel, a leading magazine, relative to the total number of issues published. Analysis shows that until 1987 media attention to climate change was low, with 1988 signaling a marked increase as scientists became more confident about climate change’s anthropogenic causes. The phrase ‘climate catastrophe’ began appearing in discourse in 1986. This phrasing functioned as means of creating a focusing event (Weingart, Engels & Pansegrau, 2000). This phrasing continued until 1995 when media began to notice that no major catastrophe

had occurred. Lacking an event to focus on, climate change drifted from media attention as it had no real end in sight. Problems with no clear solution are often neglected in the media agenda (Pralle, 2009). Without a direct event to report on or solution to offer, the issue once again was ignored. Climate change was replaced on the mass media agenda as a result of other socio-political developments.

Public Factors

It is also important to acknowledge the factors apart from agenda setting that cause public concern to increase. There is a reciprocal relationship between the media’s agenda and public enthusiasm for environmental issues (Brulle, Carmichael, & Jenkins, 2012; Pralle, 2009). The media covers an issue, then the public begins to care, ultimately caring to the point that it seeks out more media, thus driving the agenda cycle. Apart from the agenda, extreme weather, public access to accurate scientific information, media coverage, elite cues, and movement advocacy increase public concern about global warming (Brulle, Carmichael, & Jenkins, 2012). Media coverage primarily occurs as a result of elite cues and economic factors, which have the largest effect on public concern. The 2012 study admits that media coverage is not the lone contributing factor to public attention. The media can only cover so many issues at a time, making its agenda curated. While not every issue can be reasonably programmed, it tends to focus on what will pique public interest. Overall, climate change does not often meet the criteria for the agenda.

Solutions and Obstacles

It is important to consider solutions to the problem of public apathy when climate change is such a vital issue. The media needs to take an

active role in this. Repeated stories convey importance of an issue, and can combat the information deficit which currently exists on climate change (Brulle, Carmichael, & Jenkins, 2012). The more the media environment is filled with stories on the issue, the more the public will understand the severity and raise its level of concern. Based on the existing research, the solution appears to be more effective communication: communication that refuses to sensationalize or diminish an issue and conveys the urgency and potential severity of consequences if action is not taken.

Potential Obstacles

Partisanship causes problems. There is a split between believers and skeptics of global warming that runs along party lines, a split often perpetuated by mass media. Agenda setting theory works differently at present than in the past because audiences have fragmented, thus fragmenting the media. While media succeed at setting an agenda, the agenda aired today often differs from network to network, especially on cable television (Feldman, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz, 2012).

Studies show that viewers of Fox News dismiss climate change as an issue because the network dismisses it by way of providing skeptical coverage, as a channel which is editorially conservative. On the opposite side, cable networks like CNN and MSNBC present climate change in a more dire light (Feldman, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz, 2012). This divide exists not only on cable networks but throughout the media environment. If the partisan issue cannot be mended, the issue of climate change will face many obstacles in the future.

The last challenge to effective agenda setting in order to combat climate change is attention inertia. Part of the way the media set their agenda is based on

what they have historically covered and programmed. If an issue previously received attention, it is more likely to be covered by media at present. Climate change is a relative newcomer to the news agenda. Under this philosophy, the issue is often trumped in coverage by timeless issues like the economy or military-related matters.

Conclusion

Agenda setting theory argues that public apathy with regards to climate change exists because the topic is not thoroughly covered in media. When an issue receives emphasis regardless of platform it enters the minds of the general public. Existing data on the subject ultimately confirms the theory. Climate change often fails to make the agenda and affect the public because it fails to meet the criteria of mass media for what is newsworthy. Based on various analyses, media tend to cover focusing events and ignore those that are not timely or lack solutions. This neglects other critical issues which have equal validity but may be more informational as opposed to event-focused. Climate change is overlooked for these reasons. There is still room for reconsideration of current theories. As media evolve and audiences fragment, it will be crucial to look at the agenda setting effect from network to network. Audiences are increasingly splitting. Partisanship in the public also has begun to diminish the media effect. With regards to climate change, the media must overcome these obstacles and recognize that by the time the issue is severe enough to be a focusing event, it could have been prevented. Climate change will not go away regardless of media disregard. The public must embrace the reciprocal relationship and understand that this is an issue that warrants a

large amount of attention.