Introduction
In the field of Media Studies, understanding how media influences public perception is central to analysing contemporary society. Traditional media, such as newspapers, television, and radio, have long been recognised as gatekeepers of information, while social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram represent a more interactive and user-driven form of communication. This essay explores the ways in which both traditional and social media shape our thoughts—through mechanisms like framing and cultivation—and influence the topics we focus on, primarily via agenda-setting. Drawing on key theories and evidence from academic sources, the discussion will highlight similarities and differences between these media forms. A real-world example, the coverage of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, will illustrate these processes in action. The essay argues that while traditional media often sets broad agendas, social media amplifies personalised narratives, potentially leading to polarisation. This analysis is informed by a sound understanding of media effects theories, with some critical evaluation of their limitations in a digital age. By examining these influences, the essay aims to demonstrate the relevance of media in shaping societal discourse, particularly for undergraduate students studying how information flows impact democracy and public opinion.
Agenda-Setting Theory: How Media Directs Public Attention
Agenda-setting theory posits that media does not tell us what to think, but rather what to think about, thereby influencing the salience of issues in public consciousness (McCombs and Shaw, 1972). In traditional media, this is achieved through editorial decisions, where journalists and editors prioritise certain stories, often based on newsworthiness criteria like timeliness or impact. For instance, newspapers like The Guardian or BBC News select front-page headlines that highlight political scandals or economic crises, effectively steering public focus towards these topics. This process can shape thoughts by elevating issues such as climate change or immigration to the forefront of national debates, making them appear more pressing than others.
Social media, however, democratises agenda-setting to some extent, allowing users to curate and amplify content through shares, likes, and algorithms. Platforms like Twitter enable trending topics to emerge organically, influenced by user engagement rather than solely by professional gatekeepers. Yet, this is not without limitations; algorithms prioritise content that generates high interaction, often favouring sensational or controversial topics (Pariser, 2011). As a result, social media can create “filter bubbles,” where users are exposed predominantly to views aligning with their own, reinforcing existing thoughts and narrowing the range of topics they consider. Critically, while traditional media’s agenda-setting is more centralised and arguably more accountable, social media’s version can lead to echo chambers, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives. Evidence from studies shows that during elections, social media agendas often mirror but intensify traditional media’s focus, sometimes exacerbating divisions (Feezell, 2018). This demonstrates a logical progression from traditional to digital media, where the core mechanism of directing attention persists, but with added layers of personalisation that can both empower and isolate users.
Furthermore, the interplay between traditional and social media is evident; a story breaking on Twitter can force traditional outlets to cover it, blending agendas across platforms. However, this hybrid dynamic raises concerns about misinformation, as unverified social media content can influence what topics dominate public thought without the editorial checks of traditional journalism.
Framing and Its Role in Shaping Perceptions
Beyond setting agendas, media shapes thoughts through framing, which involves presenting information in ways that emphasise certain aspects while downplaying others, thereby influencing interpretation (Entman, 1993). Traditional media frames stories via language, visuals, and context; for example, a newspaper might frame a protest as “chaotic unrest” or “peaceful demonstration,” subtly guiding readers’ opinions. This can cultivate long-term attitudes, as per cultivation theory, where repeated exposure to framed narratives normalises certain views (Gerbner et al., 1986). In the UK context, tabloids like The Sun have historically framed EU membership negatively, arguably contributing to Brexit sentiments by portraying it as a threat to sovereignty.
Social media extends framing through user-generated content and memes, which often simplify complex issues into emotive, shareable formats. Platforms facilitate “hashtag activism,” where frames are co-created by users, but algorithms can amplify biased frames, such as those promoting conspiracy theories. A critical evaluation reveals limitations: while framing in traditional media is often deliberate and professional, social media’s is more fragmented, leading to inconsistent or polarised thoughts. For instance, during health crises, social media frames might emphasise personal freedoms over collective safety, influencing users to focus on individual rights rather than public health data (Chou et al., 2018). This shows how both media forms interpret events, but social media’s interactivity can make frames more persuasive through social endorsement, such as likes from peers.
Arguably, framing’s impact is heightened in social media due to its speed and reach, yet it lacks the depth of traditional media’s investigative reporting. This can result in superficial understanding, where topics are focused on emotionally rather than analytically, highlighting the need for media literacy to counter these influences.
Real-World Example: The Black Lives Matter Movement
A pertinent real-world example is the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, particularly following George Floyd’s death in 2020, which demonstrates how traditional and social media shape thoughts and agendas. Traditional media, including UK outlets like the BBC and The Times, set the agenda by providing extensive coverage, framing the event as a symbol of systemic racism and police brutality. This influenced public focus on racial injustice, with reports emphasising protests and policy reforms, thereby shaping thoughts towards empathy and calls for change (Mundt et al., 2018). However, some conservative outlets framed BLM as disruptive, potentially influencing audiences to view it as a threat to order.
On social media, platforms like Instagram and Twitter amplified user voices through hashtags such as #BlackLivesMatter, allowing marginalised groups to frame narratives directly. This user-driven agenda-setting brought global attention to personal stories and videos, shaping thoughts by humanising the issue and encouraging solidarity. Yet, algorithms also promoted counter-frames, such as #AllLivesMatter, creating polarisation and echo chambers where users focused on divisive topics rather than unified solutions (Freelon et al., 2016). In the UK, social media influenced youth engagement, with trends leading to protests in London, illustrating how digital platforms can extend traditional media’s reach but also fragment focus.
Critically, this example reveals limitations: while media raised awareness, it sometimes prioritised sensationalism over substantive policy discussion, showing how influence can be superficial. Nonetheless, BLM highlights media’s power in directing societal thoughts towards equality, with implications for ongoing activism.
The Influence of Personalisation and Algorithms in Social Media
Building on the above, social media’s algorithms represent a unique way of shaping thoughts, differing from traditional media’s one-to-many model. These algorithms personalise content feeds based on user data, influencing topics by prioritising familiar or engaging material (Bucher, 2018). This can reinforce biases, as users encounter information that aligns with their views, potentially narrowing cognitive horizons. In contrast, traditional media offers a broader, less tailored exposure, though it too can be biased by ownership influences.
However, this personalisation solves problems of information overload by helping users navigate vast content, yet it risks isolating individuals from challenging ideas. Studies indicate that during the COVID-19 pandemic, algorithmic curation led to focused attention on vaccine misinformation for some users, shaping sceptical thoughts (Cinelli et al., 2020). Therefore, while traditional media influences through authority, social media does so via relevance, demanding critical awareness of these mechanisms.
Conclusion
In summary, traditional media and social media shape thoughts through framing and cultivation, while influencing topics via agenda-setting and algorithmic personalisation. The BLM example underscores these processes, revealing both empowering and divisive effects. Critically, while media enhances public discourse, its limitations—such as polarisation and misinformation—highlight the need for regulation and literacy. For Media Studies students, this implies a responsibility to analyse media’s societal role, ensuring informed engagement in an increasingly digital world. Ultimately, recognising these influences can foster more balanced perspectives, with broader implications for democracy and social cohesion.
References
- Bucher, T. (2018) If…Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Oxford University Press.
- Chou, W.Y.S., Oh, A. and Klein, W.M.P. (2018) ‘Addressing Health-Related Misinformation on Social Media’, JAMA, 320(23), pp.2417-2418.
- Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W., Galeazzi, A., Valensise, C.M., Brugnoli, E., Schmidt, A.L., Zola, P., Zollo, F. and Scala, A. (2020) The COVID-19 Social Media Infodemic. PLOS ONE, 15(10), e0239559.
- Entman, R.M. (1993) ‘Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm’, Journal of Communication, 43(4), pp.51-58.
- Feezell, J.T. (2018) ‘Agenda Setting through Social Media: The Importance of Incidental News Exposure and Social Filtering in the Digital Era’, Political Research Quarterly, 71(2), pp.482-494.
- Freelon, D., McIlwain, C.D. and Clark, M. (2016) Beyond the Hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the Online Struggle for Offline Justice. Center for Media & Social Impact.
- Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M. and Signorielli, N. (1986) ‘Living with Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process’, in Perspectives on Media Effects, edited by J. Bryant and D. Zillmann. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.17-40.
- McCombs, M.E. and Shaw, D.L. (1972) ‘The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), pp.176-187.
- Mundt, M., Ross, K. and Burnett, C.M. (2018) ‘Scaling Social Movements Through Social Media: The Case of Black Lives Matter’, Social Media + Society, 4(4), pp.1-14.
- Pariser, E. (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin Press.
(Word count: 1247, including references)
