Introduction
Bernard Cohen’s (1963) observation that “the press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” laid the groundwork for agenda-setting theory, later developed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw. This theory posits that media institutions influence public priorities by highlighting certain issues, thereby shaping what people perceive as important. However, in today’s digital landscape, characterised by algorithmic personalisation and selective exposure, some critics argue that agenda-setting has become irrelevant. This essay contends that the theory remains pertinent, as algorithms now act as the new mediators of public attention. Drawing on core concepts from agenda-setting and integrating elements of social construction of reality theory—such as institutionalisation, objectivation, and internalisation—the essay will explore the theory’s foundations, contemporary challenges, and enduring relevance. A real-world example from the COVID-19 pandemic will illustrate these dynamics. Through this analysis, the essay demonstrates how media, both traditional and digital, continue to structure public discourse in media studies.
Foundations of Agenda-Setting Theory
Agenda-setting theory fundamentally argues that media emphasis on specific issues elevates their salience in the public’s mind (McCombs and Shaw, 1972). This process occurs at two levels: first-level agenda-setting focuses on which issues gain prominence, while second-level agenda-setting influences how those issues are framed, including the attributes and interpretations attached to them. For instance, media outlets often sensationalise stories to capture attention, thereby pushing topics into public consciousness and shaping understandings of complex matters.
The theory is closely linked to gatekeeping, where journalists and editors in traditional media—such as newspapers, television, and radio—decide what is newsworthy (Shoemaker and Vos, 2009). This gatekeeping role historically allowed media organisations to control which issues entered public discourse and which were sidelined. As noted by scholars, the public largely engages with the outcomes of this process, highlighting the media’s power in framing societal priorities (Communication Theory, n.d.).
To deepen this understanding, agenda-setting can be connected to the social construction of reality theory, as outlined by Berger and Luckmann (1966). In this framework, reality is not objective but socially constructed through processes of externalisation, objectivation, and internalisation. Externalisation involves individuals projecting their subjective experiences into the social world, while objectivation occurs when these projections become perceived as external, factual realities independent of the individuals who created them. Internalisation then reintegrates these objectivated realities back into individual consciousness, solidifying them as taken-for-granted knowledge.
In the context of agenda-setting, media acts as a key agent in this construction. For example, through repeated emphasis on certain issues, media externalises particular narratives, which become objectivated as ‘public agendas’—seemingly objective priorities that society accepts as real. Audiences then internalise these agendas, incorporating them into their worldview. This integration reveals how agenda-setting is not merely about visibility but about constructing social reality itself. However, the original formulation of agenda-setting theory often overlooks these sociological underpinnings, limiting its depth. By incorporating Berger and Luckmann’s concepts, we gain a broader awareness of how media institutionalises certain issues—turning them into stable, habitual elements of public discourse—thus enhancing the theory’s explanatory power in media studies.
Challenges to Agenda-Setting in the Digital Era
Contemporary critiques of agenda-setting stem from algorithmic personalisation and selective exposure. Eli Pariser’s (2011) concept of the ‘filter bubble’ illustrates how algorithms curate content based on user data, potentially isolating individuals in echo chambers of reinforcing viewpoints. This personalisation fragments the media landscape, suggesting that a unified public agenda is impossible, as each user’s feed presents a customised reality.
Selective exposure exacerbates this, with individuals choosing media that aligns with their beliefs, amplified by algorithms designed to maximise engagement (Knobloch-Westerwick, 2015). Critics argue this diminishes media’s agenda-setting influence, as audiences self-select content, leading to polarised and narrow information diets.
From a social construction perspective, these challenges highlight shifts in objectivation and internalisation. In digital spaces, algorithms facilitate the objectivation of personalised realities, where echo chambers become institutionalised as ‘normal’ ways of seeing the world. Users internalise these filtered views, perceiving them as objective truth. This process arguably weakens traditional agenda-setting by decentralising control from central media gatekeepers to algorithmic systems. Yet, this does not render the theory obsolete; instead, it evolves the mediating layer, as McCombs and Shaw originally envisioned a flexible intermediary between reality and public perception.
Enduring Relevance and a Real-World Example
Despite these challenges, agenda-setting persists in the digital age, with algorithms emerging as powerful new gatekeepers. Platforms like YouTube and TikTok use recommendation systems that drive content visibility; for example, YouTube’s algorithm accounts for 70% of viewed content, effectively setting first-level agendas by determining what gains prominence (Kiros, 2022). This surpasses human editors in scale, as algorithms analyse vast behavioural data to amplify issues across diverse users.
Second-level agenda-setting also thrives, with algorithms favouring emotionally charged content to boost engagement. On TikTok, for instance, conflict-driven framings of issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict often dominate, shaping interpretations through moral and emotional lenses rather than balanced analysis.
Integrating social construction theory, algorithms institutionalise these agendas by habitualising certain narratives—making them appear as objective societal priorities through repeated exposure. Objectivation occurs as viral content becomes ‘fact’ in public discourse, and internalisation embeds these into users’ realities. While personalisation creates overlapping agendas, viral breaches—such as major events—maintain shared focus, countering fragmentation.
A pertinent real-world example is the COVID-19 pandemic. During 2020, media and algorithmic platforms set a global agenda by emphasising issues like lockdowns and vaccine efficacy. Traditional outlets like the BBC and algorithmic feeds on Twitter (now X) amplified these topics, leading to widespread public salience (Lewis, 2020). From a social construction viewpoint, this involved externalising health narratives through constant coverage, objectivating them as urgent realities (e.g., mask-wearing as a societal norm), and internalising them via public compliance and policy changes. Even in personalised bubbles, cross-platform virality ensured a shared agenda, demonstrating agenda-setting’s adaptability. This case underscores the theory’s relevance, though it also reveals limitations, such as misinformation amplification, highlighting the need for critical media literacy in addressing complex problems.
Conclusion
In summary, agenda-setting theory endures in the algorithmic era, evolving from human gatekeepers to AI-driven systems that shape public salience and interpretations. By incorporating social construction concepts like institutionalisation, objectivation, and internalisation, we see how media constructs reality, adding depth to the theory. The COVID-19 example illustrates this persistence amid digital challenges. Implications for media studies include recognising algorithms’ power and advocating for ethical design to mitigate fragmentation. Ultimately, understanding these dynamics equips us to navigate an increasingly mediated world, ensuring informed public discourse.
References
- Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.
- Cohen, B. C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton University Press.
- Communication Theory. (n.d.). Agenda setting theory. Communication Theory.
- Kiros, H. (2022, September 20). YouTube’s recommendation algorithm is unresponsive to user feedback, according to Mozilla. MIT Technology Review.
- Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2015). Choice and preference in media use: Advances in selective exposure theory and research. Routledge.
- Lewis, S. C. (2020). The tension between professional control and open participation: Journalism and its boundaries. Information, Communication & Society, 13(6), 836-866.
- McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
- Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
- Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. P. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. Routledge.
