Kun tartibini belgilash nazariyasi - Agenda-setting theory

Bu maqola kabi yozilgan shaxsiy mulohaza, shaxsiy insho yoki bahsli insho Vikipediya tahrirlovchisining shaxsiy his-tuyg'ularini bayon qiladigan yoki mavzu bo'yicha asl dalillarni keltiradigan. Iltimos uni yaxshilashga yordam bering uni qayta yozish orqali entsiklopedik uslub. (Avgust 2019) (Ushbu shablon xabarini qanday va qachon olib tashlashni bilib oling)

Kun tartibini belgilash qobiliyatini tavsiflaydi yangiliklar ommaviy axborot vositalari ) mavzularidagi ahamiyatiga ta'sir ko'rsatish jamoat kun tartibi ".^[1] Kun tartibini yaratish - bu jamoatchilik xabardorligi yangiliklar ommaviy axborot vositalarining keskin muammolari va xavotiri. Kun tartibini o'rganishda ommaviy axborot vositalarining tomoshabinlarga ta'sir o'tkazish va yangiliklar tarqalishining ierarxiyasini o'rnatishga urinishlari tasvirlangan.^[2][3] Ko'proq siyosiy kuchga ega bo'lgan xalqlar ommaviy axborot vositalarida yuqori ta'sirga ega. Ommaviy axborot vositalari tomonidan kun tartibini belgilash ommaviy axborot vositalarining noaniqligi kabi narsalar to'g'risida siyosat, iqtisodiyot va madaniyat va boshqalar.^[4]

Tarix

Kun tartibini belgilash nazariyasi rasmiy ravishda Maks Makkombs tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan va Donald Shou bo'yicha ishda 1968 yil Amerika prezident saylovi. Kun tartibini belgilash - bu ijtimoiy fan nazariyasi; bashorat qilishga ham harakat qiladi. Nazariya shuni ko'rsatadiki, ommaviy axborot vositalari o'zlarining tinglovchilariga o'zlarining narsalarini singdirish orqali katta ta'sir ko'rsatadi kerak ular o'rniga, o'ylab ko'ring aslida o'ylang. Ya'ni, yangiliklar tez-tez va ko'zga tashlanadigan bo'lsa, tinglovchilar bu masalani muhimroq deb bilishadi.

Dastlabki tadqiqotlar

Kun tartibini belgilashni o'rganish tarixini birinchi bobda ko'rish mumkin Valter Lippmann 1922 yilgi kitob, Jamoatchilik fikri.^[5] Ushbu bobda "Tashqaridagi dunyo va bizning boshimizdagi rasmlar ", Lippmann ommaviy axborot vositalari dunyodagi voqealar va jamoat ongidagi tasvirlar o'rtasidagi asosiy bog'liqlik, deb ta'kidlaydi." Kun tartibini belgilash "atamasini ishlatmasdan, Valter Lippmann biz bugun" kun tartibi "deb atagan narsalar haqida yozmoqda. Lippmanga ergashgan holda, 1963 yilda, Bernard Koen matbuot "odamlarga nimani o'ylashini aytib berishda ko'p vaqt omadli bo'lmasligi mumkin, ammo u o'z o'quvchilariga nima haqida o'ylash kerakligini aytishda juda muvaffaqiyatli. Dunyo har xil odamlarga boshqacha ko'rinishda bo'ladi", deya davom etadi Koen. yozuvchilar, tahrirlovchilar va o'qigan qog'oz nashrlari tomonidan ular uchun tuzilgan xarita. "^[6] 1960-yillarning boshlarida, Koen keyinchalik Makkombs va Shou tomonidan kun tartibini belgilash nazariyasini rasmiylashtirishga olib kelgan g'oyani bildirgan edi. Kun tartibini belgilaydigan eng kuchli ta'sirga ega bo'lgan voqealar Qo'shma Shtatlar ichidagi mojarolar, terrorizm, jinoyatchilik va giyohvandlik bilan bog'liq voqealardir. Qo'shma Shtatlarni va siyosatni o'z ichiga olmaydigan yoki jalb qilmaydiganlar jamoatchilik fikri bilan salbiy aloqada. O'z navbatida, kamroq tashvish mavjud.

Maksvell Makkombs allaqachon bu sohaga qiziqish bildirgan bo'lsa-da, u fakultetda o'qiyotgan paytida Koenning ishiga duch kelgan. UCLA Koenning ishi unga va keyinchalik Donald Shouga katta ta'sir ko'rsatdi.^[7] Kun tartibini belgilash konsepsiyasi Makkombs va Shou tomonidan Shimoliy Karolina shtatidagi Chapel Xillda 1968 yilgi prezidentlik saylovlari paytida boshlangan. Ular Lippmannning bizning boshimizdagi rasmlarni qurish g'oyasini ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibidagi masalalarni va saylovchilarning aniq bo'lmagan kun tartibidagi asosiy masalalar bilan taqqoslash orqali ko'rib chiqdilar. Ular kun tartibining aniqligi saylovchilarning kun tartibi bilan juda bog'liqligini aniqlash orqali kun tartibini belgilashga oid dalillarni topdilar. Makkombs va Shou birinchi bo'lib aloqa sohasini ommaviy axborot vositalarining qudrati va uning jamoatchilik kun tartibiga ta'sirini ko'rsatadigan empirik dalillar bilan ta'minladilar. Ampirik dalillar ushbu nazariyani boshqa ijtimoiy ilmiy nazariyalar orasida ishonchliligini oshirdi.^[7][2]

G. Rey Funkxouzer ismli nisbatan noma'lum olim Makkombs va Shouga juda o'xshash tadqiqotni mualliflar nazariyani rasmiylashtirgan bir paytda amalga oshirdi.^[8] Uchala olim ham - Makkombs, Shou va Funkxouzerlar hattoki o'zlarining topilmalarini o'sha ilmiy konferentsiyada taqdim etdilar. Funkhouzerning maqolasi Makkombs va Shoudan keyinroq nashr etilgan va Funkhouzer kun tartibini kashf etgani uchun Makkombs va Shoudan ko'proq mamnun emas. Ga binoan Everett Rojers, buning ikkita asosiy sababi bor.^[7] Birinchidan, Funkhouser nazariyani rasmiy ravishda nomlamadi. Ikkinchidan, Funkhouzer dastlabki maqoladan ancha oldin o'z izlanishlarini davom ettirmadi. Rojers, shuningdek, Funkhouzerning geografik jihatdan yakkalanib qolganligini taxmin qilmoqda Stenford Makkombs va Shou boshqa odamlarni kun tartibini belgilashga qiziqish uyg'otdi.

"Kun tartibini yaratish nazariyasi" ni ishlab chiqish

1968 yilda "Chapel Hill o'rganish" da, Makkombs va Shou kuchli ekanligini namoyish etdi korrelyatsiya koeffitsienti (r> .9) 100 aholisi o'rtasida Chapel Hill, Shimoliy Karolina fikr saylovlarning eng muhim masalasi, mahalliy va respublika ommaviy axborot vositalarining xabar berishlari eng muhim masala edi.^[9] Yangiliklar tarkibidagi masalalarning keskinligini jamoatchilikning eng muhim saylov masalasi haqidagi tasavvurlari bilan taqqoslab, Makkombs va Shou ommaviy axborot vositalarining belgilaydigan darajasini aniqlay oldilar jamoatchilik fikri. 1972 yildagi nashrida nashr etilgan 1968 yilgi tadqiqotdan beri Har chorakda jamoatchilik fikri, kun tartibini belgilash funktsiyasi bo'yicha 400 dan ortiq tadqiqotlar nashr etilgan ommaviy axborot vositalari va nazariyani dolzarb deb hisoblash davom etmoqda.

Kun tartibini belgilashning 3 modeli

Tahlilning quyidagi 3 modeli mavjud "kun tartibini belgilashning ta'siri":^[3]

1. "Xabardorlik modeli"
2. "Ustuvor model"
3. "Salience modeli"

Kun tartibini belgilash effekti bo'yicha olib borilgan tadqiqotlar yangiliklar tarkibidagi masalalarning keskinligini jamoatchilikning eng muhim masalani qabul qilishi bilan taqqoslaydi, so'ngra ommaviy axborot vositalari rahbarligi ta'sir doirasini tahlil qiladi. Maks Makkombs tomonidan uchta model mavjud: "xabardorlik modeli", "ustuvor model" va "taniqli model". Ko'pgina tergovlar ushbu uchta modelga asoslangan.^[3]

Turli xil ommaviy axborot vositalarida kun tartibini belgilashning turli xil imkoniyatlari mavjud. Kun tartibini belgilash nuqtai nazaridan an'anaviy ommaviy axborot vositalari va yangi virtual bo'shliqlar o'rtasidagi munosabatlarni tahlil qilish tobora kuchayib borayotganiga guvoh bo'ldi. Kun tartibini belgilovchi roli kontseptsiyasining eng muhim jihatlaridan biri ommaviy aloqa bu hodisa uchun vaqt oralig'i.^[10]

Kun tartibini belgilash bo'yicha ko'plab tadqiqotlar quyidagilarga asoslangan:^[2][3]

1. matbuot va ommaviy axborot vositalari haqiqatni aks ettirmaydi; ular uni filtrlaydi va shakllantiradi;
2. ommaviy axborot vositalarining bir nechta masalalar va mavzularga konsentratsiyasi jamoatchilikni ushbu masalalarni boshqa masalalarga qaraganda muhimroq deb bilishiga olib keladi.

Kun tartibini belgilashning 3 turi: siyosatchilar, OAV va auditoriya

Tadqiqotlar shuni ko'rsatadiki, ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibi, auditoriya kun tartibi va siyosat kun tartibi keyingi qismda aytib o'tilganidek kun tartibiga ta'sir qiladi. Rojers va Derving kun tartibini belgilashning quyidagi turlari (qaram o'zgaruvchi tadqiqotda) boshqa omillar ta'sir qiladi:^[3]

1. "Siyosat kun tartibini belgilash" yoki "Siyosiy kun tartibi sozlash ": ushbu tadqiqot modeli elita siyosatchilarining kun tartibiga boshqa omillar qanday ta'sir qilishiga, ya'ni siyosat ishlab chiqaruvchilarning kun tartibiga bog'liq o'zgaruvchi sifatida qarashga qaratilgan.
2. "OAV kun tartibini belgilash" yoki "Kun tartibidagi bino ": ushbu tadqiqot modeli ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibiga boshqa omillar qanday ta'sir qilishiga, ya'ni ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibiga bog'liq o'zgaruvchi sifatida qarashga qaratilgan.
3. "Jamoatchilik / tomoshabinlarning kun tartibini belgilash", an'anaviy gipoteza bo'lgan ushbu tadqiqot modeli tinglovchilar yoki jamoatchilik kun tartibiga shaxsiy, diniy va boshqa omillar qanday ta'sir qilishiga qaratilgan. madaniy qadriyatlar, ya'ni ommaviy kun tartibi bog'liq o'zgaruvchi sifatida qaraladi.

Tadqiqotlar shuni ko'rsatdiki, ommaviy axborot vositalari fosh etishga qaror qilgan narsalar ularning siyosat, iqtisod va madaniyat kabi narsalarga bo'lgan qarashlari bilan bog'liq. Obyektivlikdan tashqari, boshqa ommaviy axborot vositalarining tanqidchilari Qo'shma Shtatlardagi yangiliklar ko'ngil ochishning bir turiga aylanganini da'vo qilishmoqda. Jurnalistlar jamoatchilikni kerakli ma'lumot bilan ta'minlash o'rniga, shov-shuvli va shov-shuvli sarlavhalarga bo'lgan ishtahani to'ldirishga intilishadi.^[11] Ko'proq siyosiy kuchga ega bo'lgan mamlakatlar ommaviy axborot vositalarida tez-tez uchraydi. Moliyaviy manbalar, texnologiyalar, tashqi savdo va armiyaga sarflangan mablag'lar qamrov tengsizligini tushuntiradigan asosiy omillardan biri bo'lishi mumkin.^[4]

Ommaviy kommunikatsiya tadqiqotlari, Rojers va Dyoringning ta'kidlashicha, ko'p narsalarga e'tibor qaratgan "jamoat kun tartibini belgilash" (masalan, Makkombs va Shou, 1972) va "ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibini belgilash", lekin umuman e'tibordan chetda qoldi "siyosat kun tartibini belgilash ", asosan, tomonidan o'rganiladi siyosatshunoslar. Shunday qilib, mualliflar ommaviy kommunikatsiya bo'yicha olimlar ommaviy axborot vositalari va jamoat kun tartibi elit siyosat ishlab chiqaruvchilarining kun tartibiga qanday ta'sir qilishi mumkinligiga ko'proq e'tibor berishlarini taklif qilishadi (ya'ni olimlar AQSh Kongressi Prezidenti yoki a'zolari yangiliklarini qaerdan olishlarini va bu ularning siyosatlariga qanday ta'sir qilishini so'rashlari kerak). . 2006 yilda yozgan Uolgreyv va Van Aelst Rojers va Dyoringning takliflarini ko'rib chiqdilar va siyosiy kun tartibini tuzishning dastlabki nazariyasini yaratdilar, bu elita siyosatchilarining kun tartibiga ta'sir qilishi mumkin bo'lgan omillarni o'rganib chiqdilar.^[12]

Kun tartibini belgilash jarayoni (mavjudlik deb nomlanadi)

Kun tartibini belgilash kognitiv jarayon orqali sodir bo'ladi "kirish imkoniyati".^[13][14] Erişilebilirlik shuni anglatadiki, yangiliklar ommaviy axborot vositalari tez-tez va ko'zga tashlanadigan mavzuni yoritib borgan sari tinglovchilar xotirasida ushbu masalaning shuncha ko'p nusxalari mavjud bo'lib qoladi. Respondentlardan mamlakat oldida turgan eng muhim muammo nima deb so'ralganda, ular xotirada eng ko'p qabul qilinadigan yangiliklar bilan javob berishadi, bu odatda yangiliklar ommaviy axborot vositalarida eng ko'p e'tibor qaratadigan masaladir. Kun tartibini belgilash effekti bir yoki bir nechta xabarlarni qabul qilish natijasi emas, balki ularning har biri har xil tarkibga ega bo'lgan, ammo barchasi bir xil umumiy masalani ko'rib chiqadigan juda ko'p sonli xabarlarning umumiy ta'siridan kelib chiqadi.^[2] Umuman olganda ommaviy axborot vositalarining yoritilishi va ayniqsa kun tartibini belgilash, shuningdek, odamlarning boshqa odamlar o'ylaydigan fikrlariga kuchli ta'sir ko'rsatadi,^[2][15] va shuning uchun ular ommaviy axborot vositalari tomonidan keng yoritilgan masalalarga ko'proq ahamiyat berishadi. Bu ham deyiladi sxemalar nazariyasi. Psixologiya va kognitiv fanlarda sxema (ko'plik sxemalari yoki sxemalari) ma'lumot toifalarini va ular o'rtasidagi munosabatlarni tartibga soladigan fikr yoki xulq-atvor naqshini tavsiflaydi.

Kun tartibini Siyosat kun tartibini tuzish bilan taqqoslash

Ko'proq olimlar kun tartibini belgilaydigan nazariyalarga bag'ishlangan maqolalar nashr etishlari bilanoq, bu jarayon nafaqat ommaviy axborot vositalarining faol rolini, balki jamoatchilikning ishtirokini ham o'z ichiga olishi aniq bo'ldi.^[16][17] shuningdek, siyosatchilar.^[18] Rojers va Derving kun tartibini belgilash va kun tartibini tuzish o'rtasidagi farqni ommaviy axborot vositalarining yoki jamoatchilikning ustun rolidan kelib chiqib tasvirlab berishdi. Shunday qilib, kun tartibini "belgilash" ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibining jamiyatga ta'sirini anglatadi,^[3] ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibini jamoatchilik kun tartibiga o'tkazish,^[18] kun tartibini "qurish" esa ommaviy axborot vositalari va jamiyat o'rtasida "ma'lum darajada o'zaro bog'liqlikni" o'z ichiga oladi^[17] ham ommaviy axborot vositalari, ham jamoat kun tartibi davlat siyosatiga ta'sir qiladi.^[3]

Sun Young Li va Daniel Riffening so'zlariga ko'ra, kun tartibini yaratish nazariyasi ommaviy axborot vositalari vakuum sharoitida ishlamaydi, deb taxmin qilmoqda. Ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibi aslida ba'zi kuchli guruhlar ijtimoiy nazoratning nozik shakli sifatida ko'rsatadigan ta'sirining natijasidir. Jurnalistlar cheklangan vaqtga va cheklangan manbalarga ega bo'lib, tashqi manbalarning axborot ommaviy axborot vositalarining eshiklarini saqlash jarayonida ishtirok etishiga hissa qo'shishi mumkin, va ba'zi olimlar axborot manbalari va yangiliklar ommaviy axborot vositalari tuzgan kun tartibi o'rtasidagi ba'zi munosabatlarni ochib berishga harakat qilishdi. . Ushbu kun tartibini yaratish jarayonida turli xil yo'llar bilan ishtirok etishi mumkin bo'lgan bir nechta manbalar mavjud, ammo tadqiqotchilar ommaviy axborot vositalari to'plamlari va press-relizlar kabi axborot vositalarining samaradorligi bilan eng ko'p qiziqishgan. tashkilotlarning jamoatchilik bilan aloqalardagi sa'y-harakatlari muvaffaqiyati.

Berkovits siyosat kun tartibini belgilash va siyosat kun tartibini yaratish atamalarini kiritib, kun tartibini belgilash va kun tartibini yaratish nazariyalarini yanada nozik tahlilini amalga oshirdi.^[18] Uning ta'kidlashicha, olimlar faqat ommaviy axborot vositalari va siyosatchilar o'rtasidagi bog'liqlikni tekshirganda, siyosat kun tartibini belgilash tushunchasidan foydalanish hali ham o'rinli bo'ladi.^[18] Biroq, e'tibor nafaqat siyosatshunoslarning shaxsiy kun tartibiga, balki ommaviy axborot vositalarining jamoatchilik kayfiyatining faqat bitta ko'rsatkichini ifodalaydigan kengroq muhim masalalarga qaratilganda, Berkovits siyosat kun tartibini tuzish haqida gapirishni taklif qiladi.^[18]

Kun tartibini yaratish

Kun tartibini yaratish istiqboli nafaqat ommaviy axborot vositalari va siyosatshunoslar, balki ijtimoiy jarayonlar, ijtimoiy muhitda yuzaga keladigan tashvishlar va hukumat jarayonining hayotiyligi o'rtasidagi o'zaro bog'liq bog'liqlikning ahamiyatini belgilaydi. Shunday qilib, Kobb va Elderning fikriga ko'ra, kun tartibini yaratish doirasi ommaviy ishtirokni davom ettirishga imkon beradi va davlat siyosatini ishlab chiqish jarayoniga tan olingan ta'sir doirasini kengaytiradi.^[19] Garchi jamoat ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibiga ta'sir qilishi mumkin bo'lgan ro'yxatda bo'lsa-da, ular ommaviy axborot dasturlarini kuchli shakllantirishi mumkin deb o'ylamaydilar. Jurnalistlar voqea g'oyalarini izlashda o'zlarining qiziqishlariga qarab, o'z auditoriyalari ehtiyojlarini oldindan aytib berishga harakat qilishlari mumkinligi haqida bahslashish yanada to'g'ri ko'rinadi.

Ommaviy ishtirok etishning ushbu g'oyasi Internet paydo bo'lishi va barchani risoladagiga aylantirish imkoniyatlari bilan yanada ravshanlashdi.^[20] Kun tartibini belgilashda fuqarolarning rolining oshishi an'anaviy kun tartibini yaratish tadqiqotlarining yangi yo'nalishini yoritib beradi. Bu endi shunday, chunki endi keng jamoatchilik o'z ommaviy axborot vositalarini yaratishi mumkin. Ijtimoiy tarmoqlar bugungi dunyoda odamlarning narsalarga bo'lgan qarashlari va qarashlarini o'zgartirdi. Ijtimoiy tarmoqlarda ommaviy ishtirok keng jamoatchilikning ovozlarini tinglashga imkon beradi. Izohlar va javoblar odamlarga sizning fikrlaringizga murojaat qilish yoki suhbat uchun yangi eshiklarni ochish imkoniyatini beradi.

Kim va Li^[21] Internetda kun tartibini aniqlash bo'yicha tadqiqotlar an'anaviy kun tartibi tadqiqotlaridan farqli o'laroq, Internetning an'anaviy ommaviy axborot vositalari bilan raqobatdoshligi va tarkib va ​​foydalanuvchilarning o'zaro aloqalari uchun ulkan imkoniyatlarga ega ekanligi bilan ajralib turadi. Li, Lansendorfer va Li^[22] "jamoat muammolari to'g'risida turli xil fikrlar Internet e'lonlari taxtalarida yoki Usenet yangiliklar guruhida Netizens tomonidan joylashtirilgan va fikrlar keyinchalik boshqa Netizenlar taniqli masalani qabul qilishi mumkin bo'lgan kun tartibini tashkil qiladi" deb ta'kidladi. Olimlar, shuningdek, Internet Internet foydalanuvchisi fikri va jamoat maydonini shakllantirishda muhim rol o'ynaydi.

Kim va Li^[21] Koreyada 5 yil davomida (2000 yildan 2005 yilgacha) katta dalgalanma ta'siriga ega bo'lgan 10 ta holat bo'yicha amaliy tadqiqotlar o'tkazib, Internet vositachiligini kun tartibini belgilash uslubini o'rganib chiqdi. Olimlarning fikriga ko'ra, odamning fikri turli xil onlayn kanallar orqali tarqatilishi va yangiliklar yoritilishiga ta'sir ko'rsatadigan jamoatchilik fikrini sintez qilishi mumkin. Ularning tadqiqotlari "teskari kun tartibidagi ta'sirlarni" taklif qiladi, ya'ni ommaviy kun tartibi ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibini belgilashi mumkin. Maksvell Makkombs^[23] shuningdek, o'zining so'nggi darsligida "kun tartibini teskari belgilash" ni ommaviy tashvish ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibini belgilaydigan holat sifatida eslatib o'tdi.

Kim va Lining so'zlariga ko'ra,^[21] Internet orqali kun tartibini yaratish quyidagi uchta bosqichni bajaradi: 1) Internet vositachiligidagi kun tartibini buzish: noma'lum foydalanuvchi fikri Internetdagi muhim kun tartibiga bloglar, shaxsiy sahifalar va Internet e'lonlar taxtalari kabi Internetdagi asosiy kun tartibiga tarqaladi. . 2) Internetdagi kun tartibining tarqalishi: onlayn yangiliklar yoki veb-saytlar Internetdagi muhim kun tartibi haqida xabar berishadi, bu esa o'z navbatida kun tartibini ko'proq onlayn ommaga tarqatishga olib keladi. 3) Internet vositachiligining teskari kun tartibini belgilash: an'anaviy ommaviy axborot vositalari onlayn kun tartibini jamoatchilikka xabar berishadi, shunda kun tartibi ham oflayn, ham onlayn ommaga tarqaladi. Biroq, olimlar xulosa qilishicha, Internet vositachiligida kun tartibini belgilash yoki kun tartibini yaratish jarayonlari har doim ham ketma-ketlikda bo'lmaydi. Masalan, an'anaviy ommaviy axborot vositalari tomonidan e'lon qilingan kun tartibi onlayn munozarasi orqali yana birinchi o'ringa chiqishi yoki qisqa vaqt ichida uchta qadam bir vaqtning o'zida amalga oshishi mumkin.

Bir qator tadqiqotlar Internet-hamjamiyat, xususan bloggerlar o'zlarining kun tartibini jamoat kun tartibiga, so'ngra ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibiga va oxir-oqibat siyosat kun tartibiga chiqarishi mumkinligiga dalillar keltiradi. Bugungi kunga qadar eng keng qamrovli tadqiqotda Wallsten^[24] 2004 yilgi saylovoldi kampaniyasi davomida ommaviy axborot vositalarining yoritilishini va blogdagi 35 masalani muhokama qilishni kuzatdi. Foydalanish vaqt qatorini tahlil qilish, Uolsten jurnalistlar bloggerlar blog yuritayotgan masalalarni muhokama qilishiga dalil topdi. Shuningdek, bloggerlarning siyosiy kun tartibiga ta'sir ko'rsatishini ko'rsatadigan latifali dalillar mavjud. Masalan, 2005 yilda CNN-ning bosh ijrochi direktori Eason Jordan, turli xil guvohlarning so'zlariga ko'ra, Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari harbiylari Iroqdagi jurnalistlarni nishonga olgan va ulardan 12 nafarini o'ldirganiga ishonganini aytgandan so'ng, Internet hamjamiyati tomonidan qamal qilingandan so'ng, to'satdan iste'foga chiqdi. .^[25] Xuddi shunday, 2002 yilda, Trent Lott sifatida iste'foga chiqishi kerak edi Senatning ko'pchilik rahbari blogosferasida keng muhokama qilingan uning nomaqbul irqchi so'zlari tufayli.^[20] Biroq, bloggerlar nafaqat jurnalistlar va siyosatchilarni quvib chiqarishga e'tibor berishadi. 2003 yilda faol Bev Xarris tomonidan boshlangan elektron ovoz berish mashinalaridagi texnik muammolar bo'yicha onlayn tekshiruv natijasida an'anaviy ommaviy axborot vositalarini elektron ovoz berishda noto'g'ri ishlash masalasini hal qilishga majbur qilishdi. Bu o'z navbatida ushbu mashinalarni ishlab chiqaradigan Diebold kompaniyasini o'z aybini tan olishga va uni tuzatish choralarini ko'rishga majbur qildi. Global yangiliklar qamrovi doirasida kun tartibini belgilash nazariyasini sinab ko'rish uchun ko'plab tadqiqotlar o'tkazildi. Topilmalardan biri Qo'shma Shtatlar yoki Buyuk Britaniya haqida eslatib o'tilgan chet el yangiliklari, ikkala mamlakatni qamrab olmagan global yangiliklar bilan taqqoslaganda, jamoatchilik fikriga katta ta'sir ko'rsatganligini aniqladi.^[20]

Kun tartibini belgilash

Ba'zi guruhlar boshqalarga qaraganda osonroq kirish imkoniyatiga ega va shu sababli o'z talablarini boshqalarnikiga qaraganda kun tartibiga kiritish ehtimoli ko'proq.^[19] Masalan, siyosatchilar yangiliklar manbalarining umumiy guruhiga qaraganda ta'sirchanroq ekanligi aniqlandi, chunki ular ko'pincha jurnalistlarning ishonchli va bashorat qilinadigan ma'lumotlarga bo'lgan ehtiyojlarini va ularning yangiliklarga layoqatini belgilashni yaxshiroq tushunishadi.^[18] Kobb va oqsoqol qaror qabul qiluvchilarga yanada muhimroq ahamiyat berishdi, masalaning kun tartibi maqomiga ega bo'lishi uchun uni hech bo'lmaganda ba'zi muhim qaror qabul qiluvchilar qo'llab-quvvatlashlari kerak, chunki ular rasmiy kun tartibiga qo'riqchilar sifatida harakat qilishdi.^[19] Shuningdek, ular ommaviy axborot vositalaridagi ayrim shaxslar fikr rahbarlari sifatida harakat qilishlari va ma'lum bir masalada ommaviy axborot vositalarida yoritilishini olib borishlari mumkin deb ta'kidladilar.^[19] Hukumatga aloqador yangiliklar manbalari OAV kun tartibiga kirishda yuqori muvaffaqiyatlarga ega va bir qator olimlar tomonidan mahalliy, shtat va milliy darajadagi manbalar eng tez-tez ko'rinadigan deb topilgan.^[18]

Yangilik manbalari, shuningdek, kelgusi munozarasi shartlarini belgilaydigan va muammolarni aniq usullar bilan belgilaydigan masalalarning ta'riflarini berishi mumkin.^[18][26] Makkombs va Valensuela ta'kidlaganidek; "Bizga inflyatsiya to'g'risida ogohlantiradigan ommaviy axborot vositalarining hojati yo'q, chunki odatdagi xaridlar uning mavjudligini ko'rsatmoqda. Ammo byudjet taqchilligi kabi mavhum iqtisodiy mavzular haqida bilish uchun bizning asosiy manbaimiz - bu ommaviy axborot vositalari." ^[27]"Haqiqat" ning qanday talqin qilinishi jamoatchilik muhokamasida hukmronlik qilishi ijtimoiy muammoning kelajagi, manfaatdor guruhlar va siyosatshunoslar va siyosatning o'zi uchun ta'sir qiladi.^[26] Masalan, Gusfildning ta'kidlashicha, spirtli ichimliklarni iste'mol qilish bilan bog'liq magistral yo'lidagi o'limlarni mas'uliyatsiz mast haydovchilar muammosi, yetarlicha avtomobil yo'qligi deb talqin qilish mumkin. avariya qobiliyati, transport tizimiga haddan tashqari bog'liq bo'lgan transport tizimi, avtomobil yo'llarining yomon dizayni, kattalar ijtimoiy hayotida ichkilikka haddan tashqari ahamiyat berish.^[28] Vaziyatni shakllantirishning turli usullari haqiqatning nufuzli versiyasi sifatida qabul qilinishi uchun raqobatlashishi mumkin,^[26] Binobarin, muammoni aniqlash uchun axborot manbalari o'rtasida raqobat kuchaymoqda. Axborotning juda kuchli manbalari, masalaning ommaviy axborot vositalarining e'tiborini umuman jalb qilishiga ta'sir qilishi mumkin.^[29]

Ommaviy axborot vositalari va siyosatchilarning o'zaro munosabatlari simbiotik xususiyatga ega va norasmiy qoidalar to'plamining umumiy madaniyati bilan boshqariladi, chunki jurnalistlar rasmiy ma'lumotlarga ega bo'lishlari kerak va siyosatchilar ommaviy axborot vositalarida yoritilishi kerak; shunga qaramay, jurnalistlar va siyosatchilarning ehtiyojlari ko'pincha turli yo'nalishlarga ega bo'lganligi sababli mos kelmaydi, chunki kuchli manbalar odatdagi vaziyatlarda eng yaxshi holatda bo'ladi va inqiroz yoki falokat yuz berganda sekinroq harakat qiladi.^[3][18] Binobarin, ushbu madaniyat qoidalarini eng yaxshi tushunadigan siyosatchilar o'zlarining kun tartibini belgilashga va ularga ta'rif berishga qodir.^[18] Boshqa tomondan, davlat amaldorlari va siyosatchilar ushbu masalaga ommaviy axborot vositalarining e'tiborini bilvosita ifodasi sifatida qabul qilganda, ommaviy axborot vositalari ham siyosatchilarga ta'sir qiladi.^[3]

Kun tartibini belgilash nazariyasi bo'yicha akademik tadqiqotlar

Kun tartibini belgilash nazariyasi bo'yicha tadqiqotlarni ko'rib chiqing

Kun tartibini belgilash nazariyasida turli tanqidlar qilingan:

• Kun tartibini belgilash tabiatan sababiy nazariyadir, ammo ozgina tadqiqotlar taxmin qilingan vaqtinchalik tartibni o'rnatadilar (ommaviy axborot vositalari jamoatchilikning kun tartibini belgilashi kerak).
• Bog'liq o'zgaruvchini o'lchash dastlab jamoatchilik tomonidan qabul qilingan "keskinlik" muammosi sifatida kontseptsiyalashgan edi, ammo keyingi tadqiqotlar qaram o'zgaruvchini tushuncha, e'tibor yoki tashvish sifatida kontseptsiyalashtirdi va natijalar turli xil natijalarga olib keldi.
• Tadqiqotlar ommaviy axborot kontentlari toifalarini va jamoatchilikning javoblarini juda keng toifalarga birlashtirishga moyil bo'lib, natijada korrelyatsiya koeffitsientlari oshdi.^[3]
• Nazariya tinglovchilar umuman passiv pozitsiyani egallashini anglatardi. Biroq, jamoat nazariya taxmin qilganidek passiv emas. Nazariyotchi Jon Fiske passiv auditoriya nuqtai nazariga qarshi chiqdi.^[30]

Kun tartibini belgilaydigan tadqiqotlarda e'tiborga olinadigan qo'shimcha omillar

"Ommaviy axborot vositalarining auditoriyaga ta'siri" va "auditoriyadagi shaxslarga ta'sir miqdori"

Ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibining tomoshabinlarga to'g'ridan-to'g'ri ta'sirini nazarda tutadigan kun tartibini belgilashning aks ettirilgan tasvir effektlarini engishga urinish uchun bir nechta olimlar kun tartibini tuzish modeli individual / jamoaviy auditoriya xususiyatlarini yoki haqiqiy sharoitlarni o'z ichiga olishi kerakligini taklif qildilar. masalaning ahamiyatiga ta'sir qiladi. Ular ma'lum individual va guruh xususiyatlarining shartli shartlar sifatida harakat qilishlari mumkinligini aniqladilar ommaviy axborot vositalarining ta'siri va "auditoriya effektlari" modelini taklif qildi.^[16]

Tomoshabin effektlari modeliga ko'ra, ommaviy axborot vositalarida yoritilishi auditoriyaning oldindan sezgirligi bilan o'zaro aloqada bo'lib, muammoga oid o'zgarishlarni keltirib chiqaradi. Shunday qilib, media effektlari tomoshabinlarning o'ziga xos xususiyatlariga bog'liq.^[16] Masalan, ma'lum bir masala yoki muammo ko'proq ta'sir ko'rsatadigan yuqori sezgir auditoriya uchun ushbu masalaning ahamiyati yangiliklar ta'sirida sezilarli darajada oshadi, shu bilan boshqa guruhlarga ham ozgina ta'sir qiladi. Erbring, Goldenberg va Miller siyosiy mavzularda gaplashmaydigan odamlar ko'proq kun tartibini belgilash ta'siriga duchor bo'lishlarini namoyish etdilar, chunki ular boshqa manbalardan, shu jumladan hamkasblari va do'stlaridan ma'lumot oluvchilarga qaraganda ko'proq ommaviy axborot tarkibiga bog'liq.^[16]

Ning o'zgarishini keltirib chiqaradigan yana bir omil o'zaro bog'liqlik ommaviy axborot vositalari va jamoat kun tartibi o'rtasida masalaning "obstrusiv" yoki "noaniq" ekanligi;^[3] ya'ni yuqori yoki past emissiya chegarasiga ega bo'ladimi.^[17] Shafqatsiz yoki past darajadagi muammolar odatda deyarli har bir kishiga ta'sir qiladi va ular bilan shaxsiy tajribaga ega bo'lishimiz mumkin (masalan, shahar bo'ylab jinoyatchilik yoki o'sish benzin narxi ). Shaxsiy tashvishlar bilan bog'liqligi sababli, ushbu muammolar deyarli e'tiborni jalb qiladi siyosiy elita shuningdek, ommaviy axborot vositalari. Bundan tashqari, ushbu turdagi muammolar bilan muammo, hatto ommaviy axborot vositalarining e'tiborini jalb qilmasdan ham, umuman tashvishga soladi.^[31]

Oddiy yoki yuqori darajadagi muammolar - bu deyarli har kimdan uzoq bo'lgan masalalar (masalan, yuqori darajadagi qonunbuzarliklar, masalan Votergeyt bilan bog'liq janjal; ahvoli Suriyalik qochqinlar ). Tsuker tomonidan olib borilgan tadqiqotlar shuni ko'rsatadiki, agar jamoatchilikning aksariyat vakillari u bilan bevosita aloqada bo'lgan bo'lsa, muammo noaniq, auditoriya a'zolari to'g'ridan-to'g'ri tajribaga ega bo'lmasa, unchalik ahamiyatsiz. Bu shuni anglatadiki, odamlar biron bir masala bo'yicha to'g'ridan-to'g'ri tajriba qanchalik kam bo'lsa, yangiliklar ommaviy axborot vositalarining ushbu masala bo'yicha jamoatchilik fikriga ta'siri shunchalik katta bo'ladi.^[3][17][32]

Bundan tashqari, noaniq yoki yuqori darajadagi muammolar ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibiga obstruktiv masalalar singari kirmaydi va shuning uchun ommaviy axborot vositalarining voqeaga bag'ishlagan maydoni yoki vaqtidan ko'proq funktsiyani tashkil etishni talab qiladi. Ikkinchisi voqeani beparvolik ostonasidan o'tib yuborishi mumkin, ammo ma'lum bir voqea qanday qilib muammoga aylanib ketishini tushuntirish uchun qamrab olish turiga qarash kerak.^[17]

"Shaxsiy aloqadorlik" ning "yo'nalishga bo'lgan individual ehtiyoj" ga ta'siri

Kun tartibini belgilash bo'yicha tadqiqotlar odatda ommaviy axborot vositalari va jamoat kun tartibi o'rtasidagi bog'liqlikning o'zgaruvchanligini ko'rsatadi. Korrelyatsiyadagi farqlarni tushuntirish uchun Makkombs va uning hamkasblari "yo'naltirishga ehtiyoj" kontseptsiyasini yaratdilar, bu "ko'rsatmalar va fon ma'lumotlarini yo'naltirish istagidagi individual farqlarni tavsiflaydi".

Ikki tushuncha: dolzarbligi va noaniqlik, shaxsning yo'nalishga bo'lgan ehtiyojini aniqlang. Muvofiqlik shuni ko'rsatadiki, agar biron bir masala shaxsiy ahamiyatga ega bo'lmasa, shaxs ommaviy axborot vositalarining ma'lumotlarini qidirmaydi. Demak, agar dolzarblik past bo'lsa, odamlar kamroq yo'nalishga ehtiyoj sezadilar. Mamlakatimizda shunchaki odamlarga tegishli bo'lmagan ko'plab muammolar mavjud, chunki ular bizga ta'sir qilmaydi. Ko'pgina yangiliklar tashkilotlari muammolarni o'z auditoriyasiga mos keladigan tarzda tuzishga harakat qilishadi. Bu ularning tomoshabinlarini / o'quvchilarini yuqori darajada saqlash usulidir. "Noaniqlik darajasi - bu yo'naltirishga bo'lgan ehtiyojning ikkinchi belgilovchi sharti. Ko'pincha shaxslar allaqachon mavzu bo'yicha istagan barcha ma'lumotlarga ega. Ularning noaniqlik darajasi past".^[33] Agar muammolar yuqori shaxsiy ahamiyatga ega bo'lsa va noaniqlik past bo'lsa, ushbu masalalardagi har qanday o'zgarishlarni kuzatib borish zarurati paydo bo'ladi va yo'naltirishga o'rtacha ehtiyoj paydo bo'ladi. Agar biron bir vaqtda tomoshabinlar / o'quvchilar har qanday masala / tadbir / saylov kampaniyasiga nisbatan yuqori dolzarblikka va yuqori noaniqlikka ega bo'lsalar, unda yo'naltirishga ehtiyoj katta bo'lgan.

Devid Uayver (1977)^[34] dolzarbligi va noaniqligi nuqtai nazaridan aniqlangan "individual yo'nalishga bo'lgan ehtiyoj" tushunchasini moslashtirdi. 1977 yilda Weaver tomonidan olib borilgan tadqiqotlar shuni ko'rsatdiki, odamlarning yo'nalishga bo'lgan ehtiyojlari turlicha. Yo'naltirish zarurati - bu shaxsning mavzuga bo'lgan qiziqishi va ushbu masala bo'yicha noaniqligi. Yuqori darajadagi qiziqish va noaniqlik yo'nalishga bo'lgan ehtiyojning yuqori darajasini keltirib chiqaradi. Shunday qilib, shaxsga ta'sir qilishi ehtimoldan yiroq emas ommaviy axborot vositalari hikoyalar (nazariyaning psixologik jihati).^[35]

Schonbach and Weaver (1985) orientatsiyaga bo'lgan ehtiyojni e'tiborga olgan holda, kun tartibini belgilashning eng kuchli ta'sirini o'rtacha yo'nalishga bo'lgan ehtiyoj (past qiziqish va yuqori noaniqlik sharoitida) ko'rsatdi.^[36]

Kun tartibini belgilaydigan tadqiqotlarda nazariyani ishlab chiqish

Ikkinchi darajadagi kun tartibini belgilash: kun tartibini belgilash

"Kun tartibini belgilashning birinchi darajali effektlari o'rnatilgandan so'ng, tadqiqotchilar kun tartibini belgilashning" ikkinchi darajasi "ni o'rganishni boshladilar, ular atributlarning ta'sirchanligini yoki yangiliklar yoki ob'ektlarni yoki odamlarni tavsiflovchi xususiyatlarni, sifatlarni va xususiyatlarni ta'sirini tekshiradi. bu xususiyatlarning ohangini. " Tadqiqotlar nazariya ta'sirini tasdiqlaganidan keyin kun tartibini belgilashning ikkinchi darajasi taklif qilindi. Kun tartibini belgilash nazariyasi ishlab chiqilayotganda, olimlar ob'ektni tavsiflovchi ko'plab xususiyatlarni ta'kidladilar. Kun tartibidagi ob'ektlarning har biri kognitiv tarkibiy qismlarni o'z ichiga olgan ko'plab xususiyatlarga ega, masalan, ob'ektning xususiyatlarini tavsiflovchi ma'lumotlar va ta'sirchan tarkibiy qism, shu jumladan kun tartibidagi xususiyatlarning ohanglari (ijobiy, salbiy, neytral). Kun tartibini belgilash nazariyasi va kun tartibini belgilashning ikkinchi darajasi, ramkalar jamiyat uchun ommaviy axborot vositalarining ta'sirini ko'rsatishda ham dolzarb va o'xshashdir, ammo ular ta'sirning boshqa jarayonini tavsiflaydi. Ulardan biri bizga qanday ma'lumotni qayta ishlash kerakligini, ikkinchisi ushbu ma'lumotni qanday ishlash kerakligini aytadi. Kadrlar nazariyasi, kun tartibini kengaytirish, ommaviy axborot vositalarining "pozitsiyasi" tomoshabinning idrokiga qanday ta'sir qilishi mumkinligini tavsiflaydi. Ta'kidlanishicha, kun tartibini belgilashning ikkinchi darajali ikkita asosiy xususiyati mavjud. Bularga mazmunli va affektiv kiradi. Moddiy omil asosan shaxsiyat va mafkura kabi narsalar bilan bog'liq. Ta'sir etuvchi omil narsalarning ijobiy, salbiy va neytral tomonlariga yo'naltirilgan. Masalan, siyosiy nomzodning tajribasini ommaviy axborot vositalarida yoritish, ikkinchi darajali kun tartibini belgilashning mazmunli o'lchoviga, nomzodning tajribasiga bo'lgan munosabat (ijobiy, salbiy yoki neytral) ta'sirchan o'lchovga kiritilgan bo'lishi mumkin. ^[37]

Effektlar nazariyasi iyerarxiyasi

Coleman and Wu (2009) effektlar nazariyasi ierarxiyasi va kun tartibini yaratish nazariyasi o'rtasidagi o'xshashlik va ikkinchisidan birinchisini tahlil qilishda qanday foydalanish mumkinligini ta'kidladilar. Effektlar nazariyasi ierarxiyasi uchta tarkibiy qismdan iborat: bilim, munosabat va xulq-atvor, "o'rganish, his qilish, qilish" deb ham nomlanadi. Kun tartibini belgilashning birinchi darajasi, masalan, jamoatchilik e'tiborini tortadigan siyosat masalasi, effektlar nazariyasi iyerarxiyasining "bilim" qismiga to'g'ri keladi. Kun tartibini belgilashning ikkinchi darajasi, masalan, siyosat masalasiga jamoatchilikning munosabati yoki fikri "munosabat" qismiga mos keladi. Koulman va Vuning tadqiqotlari shunchaki ushbu tarkibiy qismlarning tartibiga bag'ishlangan emas, aksincha qaysi tarkibiy qism, bilim (birinchi daraja) va munosabat (ikkinchi daraja) jamoat xulq-atvoriga ko'proq ta'sir qiladi. ^[38]

Ikkinchi darajadagi kun tartibini belgilash va freymlash

Makkombs va boshq. (1997)^[39] Ikkinchi darajadagi kun tartibini belgilash bo'yicha tadqiqotlar "atribut" shov-shuvining ta'siri bilan bog'liqligini ko'rsatdi, birinchi darajadagi kun tartibi esa "masala" ning ta'sirchanligini ko'rsatadi. Balmas va Sheafer (2010)^[40] Birinchi darajadagi kun tartibini belgilashda ommaviy axborot vositalarining bizga "nima haqida o'ylashimiz kerakligini" aytib berishdagi rolini ta'kidlaydigan asosiy e'tibor, ikkinchi darajali kun tartibini belgilashda ommaviy axborot vositalarining "qanday fikr yuritishimiz kerakligini" aytib berish funktsiyasiga o'tishini ta'kidladi. Kun tartibini belgilashning ikkinchi darajasi atributlarning kun tartibi jamoatchilik fikriga qanday ta'sir qilishini ko'rib chiqadi (Makkombs va Evatt, 1995). Bundan tashqari, Ghanem (1997)^[41] yangiliklardagi ba'zi bir kun tartiblari past psixologik masofaga ega ekanligi, jamoat kun tartibining ravshanligi uchun jiddiy dalillarni keltirib chiqarganligini namoyish etdi. Ikkinchi darajadagi kun tartibini belgilash odatiy kun tartibini tuzishdan farq qiladi, chunki u atributlar e'tiboriga e'tiborni qaratadi va jamoat atributlari kun tartibi muhim o'zgaruvchilardan biri sifatida qaraladi.

Kadrlar tuzilishining ta'sirini ko'rsatishga yordam beradigan misollardan biri, prezident Niksonning suvgeyt mojarosiga aralashishini o'z ichiga oladi. According to a study conducted by Lang and Lang, the media coverage at first belittled the watergate scandal and the President's involvement. It wasn't until the story was framed as one of the highest political scandals in US history that the public opinion changed (Lang & Lang, 1981) This event depicts how the media personnel have a great deal of power in persuading the public's opinions. It also suggests that framing is a form of gatekeeping, similar to the agenda setting theory.^[42]

There is a debate over whether framing theory should be subsumed within agenda-setting as "second-level agenda-setting". McCombs, Shaw, Weaver and colleagues generally argue that framing is a part of agenda-setting that operates as a "second-level" or secondary effect. Dietram Scheufele has argued the opposite. Scheufele argues that framing and agenda-setting possess distinct theoretical boundaries, operate via distinct cognitive processes (accessibility vs. attribution), and relate to different outcomes (perceptions of issue importance vs. interpretation of news issue).^[43]

When talking about the second-level of agenda setting, as well as the political aspects of the theory, its pivotal to include priming. Priming is considered to be the step past agenda setting, and is also referred to as the last step of the process. Priming is primarily used in political settings. It discusses how the media will choose to leave some issues about the candidates out of coverage, while presenting other issues in the fore front. This process creates different standards by which the public evaluates candidates. As well, by reporting the issues that have the most salience on the public; they are not objectively presenting both candidates equally.

According to Weaver,^[44] framing and second-level agenda setting have the following characteristics:

Similarities:

1. Both are more concerned with how issues or other objects are depicted in the media than with which issues or objects are more or less prominently reported.
2. Both focus on most salient or prominent aspects of themes or descriptions of the objects of interest.
3. Both are concerned with ways of thinking rather than objects of thinking

Differences:

1. Framing does seem to include a broader range of cognitive processes – moral evaluations, causal reasoning, appeals to principle, and recommendations for treatment of problems – than does second-level agenda-setting (the salience of attributes of an object).
   Scheufele and Tewksbury argue that "framing differs significantly from these accessibility-based models [i.e., agenda setting and priming]. It is based on the assumption that how an issue is characterized in news reports can have an influence on how it is understood by audiences;"^[45] the difference between whether we think about an issue and how we think about it. Framing and agenda setting differ in their functions in the process of news production, axborotni qayta ishlash va media effects.
2. News production: Although "both frame building and agenda building refer to macroscopic mechanisms that deal with message construction rather than media effects", frame building is more concerned with the news production process than agenda building. In other words, "how forces and groups in society try to shape public discourse about an issue by establishing predominant labels is of far greater interest from a framing perspective than from a traditional agenda-setting one."
3. News processing: For framing and agenda-setting, different conditions seem to be needed in processing messages to produce respective effects. Framing effect is more concerned with audience attention to news messages, while agenda setting is more concerned with repeated exposure to messages.
4. Locus of effect: Agenda-setting effects are determined by the ease with which people can retrieve from their memory issues recently covered by mass media, while framing is the extent to which media messages fit ideas or knowledge people have in their knowledge store.

Based on these shared characteristics, McCombs and colleagues^[46] recently argued that framing effects should be seen as the extension of agenda setting. In other words, according to them, the premise that framing is about selecting "a restricted number of thematically related attributes"^[47] for media representation can be understood as the process of transferring the salience of issue attributes (i.e., second-level agenda setting). That is, according to McCombs and colleagues' arguments, framing falls under the umbrella of agenda setting.

Accessibility (agenda-setting) vs. applicability (framing)

According to Price and Tewksbury,^[48] however, agenda-setting and framing are built on different theoretical premises: agenda-setting is based on kirish imkoniyati, while framing is concerned with qo'llanilishi (i.e., the relevance between message features and one's stored ideas or knowledge). Accessibility-based explanation of agenda-setting is also applied to second-level agenda-setting. That is, transferring the salience of issue attributes (i.e., second-level agenda-setting) is a function of accessibility.

For framing effects, empirical evidence shows that the impact of frames on public perceptions is mainly determined by perceived importance of specific frames rather than by the quickness of retrieving frames.^[49] That is, the way framing effects transpires is different from the way second-level agenda-setting is supposed to take place (i.e., accessibility). On a related note, Scheufele and Tewksbury^[45] argues that, because accessibility and applicability vary in their functions of media effects, "the distinction between accessibility and applicability effects has obvious benefits for understanding and predicting the effects of dynamic information environments".

Taken together, it can be concluded that the integration of framing into agenda-setting is either impossible because they are based on different theoretical premises or imprudent because merging the two concepts would result in the loss of our capabilities to explain various media effects.

(a) Accessibility (Agenda-setting)

Increasing attention has been devoted to examining how agenda-setting occur in terms of their psychological mechanisms (Holbrook & Hill, 2005). Price and Tewksbury (1997) argued that agenda-setting effects are based on the accessibility model of information processing. Accessibility can be defined as "how much" or "how recently" a person has been exposed to certain issues (Kim et al., 2002). Specifically, individuals try to make less cognitive effort in forming social judgments, they are more likely to rely on the information that is easily accessible (Higgins, 1996). This leads to a greater probability that more accessible information will be used when people make judgments on certain issues (Iyeanger & Kinder, 1987; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007).

The concept of accessibility is the foundation of a memory-based model (Scheufele, 2000). It assumes that individuals make judgments on the issues based on information that is easily available and retrievable from their memory (Tulving & Watkins, 1975; Hastie & Park, 1986; Iyengar, 1990). Tversky and Kahneman (1974) also argue that the formation of individuals' judgments directly correlates with "the ease in which instances or associations could be brought to mind" (p. 208). When individuals receive and process information, they develop memory traces that can be easily recalled to make decisions on a certain issue. Agenda-setting, in this regard, can make certain issue to be easily accessed in individual's memory when forming judgment about the issue.

(b) Applicability (Framing)

The idea of framing theory is closely related to the agenda-setting theory tradition but it expands more upon the research by focusing on the substance of certain issues at hand rather than on a particular topic. This means that the framing theory's basis is that of the media focuses its attention on certain events and then places them within a field of meaning. is the process of selecting certain aspects of an issue to bring people's attention and to lead them a particular line of interpretation (Entman, 1993; Scheufele, 1999). Also, the media's selective uses of certain frames can affect the way the audience thinks about the issue (Oh & Kim, 2010). This may sound similar to attribute agenda-setting. Both seem to examine which attributes or aspects of an issue are emphasized in the media (Kim et al., 2011). Some scholars even argue that framing should be considered as an extension of agenda-setting (McCombs, 1997).

However, framing is based on the applicability model, which is conceptually different from the accessibility model used in agenda-setting. According to Goffman (1974), individuals actively classify and interpret their life experiences to make sense of the world around them. These classifications and interpretations then become the individual's pre-existing and long-standing schema. Framing influences how audience thinks about issues, not by making certain aspects more salient than others, but by invoking interpretive cues that correspond to the individuals' pre-existing schema (Scheufele, 2000). Also, framing is when these interpretive cues correspond with or activate individuals' pre-existing cognitive schema (Kim et al., 2002). Applicability, in this regard, refers to finding the connection between the message in the media and the framework individuals employ to interpret the issue (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007).

Kim and his colleagues (2002) provide distinction between the applicability and accessibility models is important in terms of issue salience. Framing assumes that each individual will have its own interpretation of an issue, regardless of the salience of an issue. Specifically, it focuses on the "terminological or semantic differences" of how an issue is described. Agenda-setting, on the other hand, assume that only salient issues in the media will become accessible in people's minds when they evaluate or make judgments on the issue. Taken together, the accessibility of issue salience makes the two models of information processing different (Scheufele, 2000).

An emotion dimension

According to the theory of affective intelligence, "emotions enhance citizen rationality". It argues that emotions, particularly negative ones, are crucial in having people pay attention to politics and help shape their political views.^[50] Based on that, Renita Coleman and H. Denis Wu (2010)^[51] study whether the TV portrayals of candidates impacts people's political judgment during the 2004 U.S. presidential Election. They find that apart from the cognitive assessment, which is commonly studied before, emotion is another critical dimension of the second-level affects in agenda-setting. Three conclusions are presented:

• The media's emotional-affective agenda corresponds with the public's emotional impressions of candidates;
• Negative emotions are more powerful than positive emotions;
• Agenda-setting effects are greater on the audiences' emotions than on their cognitive assessments of character traits.

Agenda setting between media and other sources

Recent research on agenda-setting digs into the question of "who sets the media agenda".^[52]

Power relations between media and other sources

Littlejohn and Foss (2011)^[53] suggest that there are four types of power relations between media and other sources:

• High-power source & high-power media: both are equals in setting the agenda
• High-power source & low-power media: the source sets the agenda for the media
• Low-power source & high-power media: the media set their own agenda and may marginalize the source
• Low-power source & low-power media: both are too weak to set the public agenda

Intermedia agenda setting

News organizations affect one another's agendas. McCombs and Bell (1996)^[54] observe that journalists live in "an ambiguous social world" so that they will "rely on one another for confirmation and as a source of ideas". Lim (2011)^[55] finds that the major news websites in South Korea influence the agendas of online newspapers and also influence each other to some extent.

According to McCombs and Funk (2011),^[56] intermedia agenda setting is a new path of the future agenda setting research.

In addition to social media, popular daily publications such as The New York Times va Washington Post are "agenda setters" within the United States Media. These publications have a direct effect on local newspapers and television networks that are viewed on a less elite scale.

Website networks favor other websites that tend to have a higher viewing and SEO. This type of relationship is known as Power Law which allows the media to have a stronger effect on agenda setting. "Furthermore, the "birds of a feather" argument suggests that because news now exists in a network of connected websites, elite and other types of news media are now more motivated to behave similarly."

Third-level agenda-setting: network agenda setting model

The most recent agenda-setting studies explore "the extent to which the news media can transfer the salience of relationships among a set of elements to the public".^[57] That is, researchers assume that the media can not only influence the salience of certain topics in public agenda, but they can also influence how the public relate these topics to one another. Based on that, Guo, Vu and McCombs (2012)^[58] bring up a new theoretical model called Network Agenda Setting Model, which they refer to as the third-level agenda-setting. This model shows that "the news media can bundle sets of objects or attributes and make these bundles of elements salient in the public's mind simultaneously". In other words, elements in people's mind are not linear as traditional approaches indicate; instead, they are interconnected with each other to make a network-like structure in one's mind; and if the news media always mention two elements together, the audience will "perceive these two elements as interconnected".

Application of agenda-setting theory for the study of various topics

In USA

Twitter application

Over the last few years, the increase in social media use has had a direct effect on political campaign strategy, particularly on the Social Media platform Twitter. Its unique platform allows users to showcase their political opinion without functioning two directions. It is currently being viewed as a platform for political advancement. Before the use of Twitter, political candidates were using blogs and websites to portray their message and to gain more attention and popularity among their followers. Some of the most followed users on Twitter are past and current Presidents of the United States and other political figures. In terms of retweets, politicians and political parties have been labeled "influentials" on Twitter. Twitter is being used as a resource to gather information, reach a larger audience and engagement, stay up to date with current social and political issues, and to achieve the agenda building role. Twitter helps express public opinion which in turn allows a relationship to form between the media and the public. Some may argue that Twitter is still being used as a place for people to follow celebrity news and the culture of Hollywood more than it is being used for important issues and world news. Some may also argue that Twitter does not have the ability to set an agenda as much as conventional news outlets. A 2015 study found a positive correlation between issue ranks in news coverage and issue ranks in Twitter feeds, suggesting that Twitter and conventional news outlets by and large reflected each other.^[59] The influence of Twitter may not always seem direct and can change during different phases.

Non-political application

McCombs and Shaw originally established agenda-setting within the context of a presidential election. Many subsequent studies have looked at agenda setting in the context of an election or in otherwise political contexts. However, more recently scholars have been studying agenda setting in the context of brand community. A brand is defined as what resides in the minds of individuals about a product or service. Brand community is described as a "specialized, non-geographically bound community based on a structured set of social relations among admirers of a brand.^[60]" Under these definitions more than just material products can qualify as a brand, political candidates or even celebrities could be viewed as a brand as well. The theory can also be applied to commercial advertising, business news and corporate reputation,^[61] business influence on federal policy,^[62] legal systems, trials,^[63] roles of social groups, audience control, public opinion, and jamoat bilan aloqa.

• Agenda-setting in business communication. The central theoretical idea of agenda-setting theory fits well in the world of business communication as well as political communication setting. "In the case of corporate reputations, only the operational definitions of the objects and attributes on these agendas are changed to frame five key theoretical propositions about the influence of news coverage on corporate reputations among the public. This presentation of five basic propositions offers a theoretical roadmap for systematic empirical research into the influence of the mass media on corporate reputations"^[64]
• Agenda-setting in reklama. Ghorpade demonstrated media's agenda-setting can "go beyond the transfer of silence to the effect of intended behavior" and is thus relevant to reklama.^[65]
• Agenda-setting in shaxslararo aloqa. Although agenda-setting theory is related to mass communication theory, it can be applied to shaxslararo aloqa shuningdek. Yang and Stone investigated people who prefer to interpersonal communication have the same agenda as others who rely on mass media. According to them, the public agenda suggested by media can flow through interpersonal communication as well.^[66]
• Agenda-setting in crime. Agenda-setting can be connected to cultivation theory. Lowry et al. conducted a longitudinal study and revealed that network television news covering crimes often made the public not only concentrate on criminal cases but also tremble with fear.^[67]
• Agenda-setting in sog'liqni saqlash aloqalari. Ogata Jones, Denham and Springston (2006) studied the mass and interpersonal communication on ko'krak bezi saratoni screening practice and found that mass media is essential in "setting an agenda for proactive health behaviors". Women who were directly or indirectly exposed to news articles about breast cancer tended to conduct more frequent screenings than those hadn't read such articles.^[68]
• Agenda-setting and stereotiplar. Besova and Cooley (2010) found that the agenda-setting function of the media has a major effect on public opinion and how Americans perceive or judge a particular issue. They also found that negative media coverage, as opposed to neutral or positive, has greater agenda-setting power which can contribute to the formation and perpetuation of stereotypes. For example, the media often portrays foreign countries stereotypically by only covering certain stories concerned with certain issues. Only 5.6% of the international news produced by the United States media covers Africa which likely means viewers do not receive a well-rounded view of the entire continent. ^[69]

Study of topics outside US

• Evropa: Agenda-setting theory is applicable to other countries as well. In Europe, agenda-setting theory has been applied in similar pattern as in the United States.^[70][71] McCombs and Maxwell also investigated agenda-setting theory in the context of the 1995 regional and municipal elections in Spain.^[39] Maniou and Bantimaroudis (2018) examined the application of agenda-setting theory in the case of the Greek media during the left administration of A. Tsipras and introduced the term 'hybrid salience'.^[72]
• Xitoy: Guoliang, Shao and Bowman examined that agenda-setting effect in China is not as strong as in the G'arbiy dunyo. They provided empirical evidences in political and media structure in China.^[73]
• Yaponiya: In an analysis of the siyosat making process concerning temporary labor migration to Yaponiya, Kremers observed how migrant advokatlik tashkilotlar influencing public opinion through agenda setting, astarlama va hoshiya, had a limiting effect on the impact of other qiziqish guruhlari.^[74]

Future research topics (presently understudied)

Since the Chapel Hill study, a great deal of research has been carried out to discover the agenda-setting influence of the news media. The theory has not been limited to elections, and many scholars constantly explored the agenda-setting effect in a variety of communication situations. This explains that agenda-setting has a theoretical value which is able to synthesize social phenomena and to build new research questions.

Another contribution of agenda-setting is to show the power of media. Since the study of 1940 yilgi prezident saylovi yilda Eri okrugi (Ogayo shtati), by Paul Lazarsfeld and his colleagues, little evidence of mass communication effects was found over the next twenty years. In 1960, Joseph Klapper's Effects of Mass Communication also declared the limited effect of media. Agenda-setting caused a paradigm shift in the study of media effects from persuading to informing by its connection of media content and its effects on the public.

Empowerment-of-masses and decentralizing impact of Internet

The advent of the Internet and social networks give rise to a variety of opinions concerning agenda-setting effects online. Some have claimed that the power of traditional media has been weakened.^[75][76] Others think that the agenda-setting process and its role have continued on the Internet, specifically in electronic bulletin boards.^[77] With the presence of rapid mass communication, like social media, the agenda setting theory is both supported and challenged to evolve. Some suggest that social media and traditional media in political campaigns will integrate. Social media is the next step of agenda setting because now popular Twitter handles can now choose what they want their followers to see. While some theorize that the rise of social media will bring a downfall to journalists ability to set the agenda, there is considerable scholarship to counterbalance this form of thinking.^[78] People can also chose which accounts they want to follow on any social media platform. This has changed the way in which agenda setting is going and will continue to change throughout the evolution of technology and different media platforms.

One example that provides realistic criticism for this theory was the use of Twitter by reporters during the 2012 presidential election^[79] and the role that two way communication models now exist within the news media discourse.

Traditional media such as newspapers and broadcast television are "vertical media" in which authority, power and influence come from the "top" and flow "down" to the public. Nowadays vertical media is undergoing rapid decline with the growing of "horizontal media" – new media enables everyone to become a source of information and influence, which means the media is "distributed horizontally instead of top-down".^[80]

Agenda-melding

Another change of Agenda-setting Theory is known as agenda-melding, which focuses "on the personal agendas of individuals vis-à-vis their community and group affiliations".^[60] This means that individuals join groups and blend their agendas with the agendas of the group. Then groups and communities represent a "collected agenda of issues" and "one joins a group by adopting an agenda". On the other hand, agenda setting defines groups as "collections of people based on some shared values, attitudes, or opinions" that individuals join.^[60] This is different from traditional agenda setting because according to Shaw et al. individuals join groups in order to avoid social dissonance and isolation that is also known as "need for orientation".^[60] Therefore, in the past in order to belong people would learn and adopt the agenda of the group. Now with the ease of access to media, people form their own agendas and then find groups that have similar agendas that they agree with.

The advances in technology have made agenda melding easy for people to develop because there is a wide range of groups and individual agendas. The Internet makes it possible for people all around the globe to find others with similar agendas and collaborate with them. In the past agenda setting was limited to general topics and it was geographically bound because travel was limited.^[60]

Shuningdek qarang

Adabiyotlar

Qo'shimcha o'qish

• McCombs, M.; Stroud, N. J. (2014). "Psychology of Agenda-Setting Effects. Mapping the Paths of Information Processing". Aloqa bo'yicha tadqiqotlarni ko'rib chiqish. 2 (1): 68–93. doi:10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2014.02.01.003. ISSN  2255-4165.
• Balmas, M.; Sheafer, T. "Candidate image in election campaigns: attribute agenda setting, affective priming, and voting intentions". Xalqaro jamoatchilik fikrini o'rganish jurnali. 22: 2.
• Cohen, B. (1963). The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN  978-0-87772-346-2
• Davie, W. R.; Maher, T. M. (2006). "Maxwell McCombs: Agenda-Setting Explorer". Teleradioeshittirish va elektron ommaviy axborot vositalari jurnali. 50 (2): 358–364. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_13. S2CID  144914467.
• Druckman, J.; Jacobs, L.; Ostermeir (2004). "Candidate Strategies to Prime Issues and Image". Siyosat jurnali. 66 (4): 1180–1202. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3816.2004.00295.x.
• Groshek, J (2008). "Homogenous Agendas, Disparate Frames: CNN and CNN International Coverage online". Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. 52 (1): 52–68. doi:10.1080/08838150701820809. S2CID  143195972.
• Hayes, D. (2008). "Does the Messenger Matter? Candidate-Media Agenda Convergence and Its Effects on Voter Issue Salience". Har chorakda siyosiy tadqiqotlar. 61 (1): 134–146. doi:10.1177/1065912907306472. ISSN  1065-9129. S2CID  145188399.
• Huckins, K (1999). "Interest-group influence on the media agenda: A case study". Jurnalistika va har chorakda ommaviy kommunikatsiyalar. 76: 76–86. doi:10.1177/107769909907600106. S2CID  143907927.
• Iyengar, S., Kinder, D.R. (1986) More Than Meets the Eye: TV News, Priming, and Public Evaluations of the President. Public Communication and Behavior, Vol.1 New York: Academic.
• Kosicki, G. M. (1993). "Problems and Opportunities in Agenda-Setting Research" (PDF). Aloqa jurnali. 43 (2): 100–127. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01265.x. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi (PDF) 2011-09-16. Olingan 2010-12-02.
• Kosicki, G. (2002). The media priming effect: news media and considerations affecting political judgements. In D. Pfau (Ed.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (p. 63-80). Ming Oaks: Sage nashrlari.ISBN  0-7619-2006-4
• Kim, S., Scheufele, D.A., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Think about it this way: Attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue. Jurnalistika va har chorakda ommaviy kommunikatsiyalar, 79, 7-25.
• Kiousis, S.; McCombs, M. (2004). "Agenda-setting effects and attitude strength: Political figures during the 1996 Presidential elections". Aloqa bo'yicha tadqiqotlar. 31: 36–57. doi:10.1177/0093650203260205. S2CID  206436927.
• Lippmann, W. (1922). Jamoatchilik fikri. Nyu-York: Makmillan.
• McCombs, Maxwell E.; Donald L. Shaw (1972). "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media". Har chorakda jamoatchilik fikri. 36 (2): 176. doi:10.1086/267990. ISSN  0033-362X.
• McCombs, M.E.; Shaw, D.L. (1993). "The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Research: Twenty-Five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas". Aloqa jurnali. 43 (2): 58–67. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01262.x.
• Reiley, K. (2008, Nov.20). The Never-ending campaign. Suhbat. 56-bet.
• Revkin, A., Carter, S., Ellis,J., and McClean A. (2008, Nov.) On the Issues: Climate Change. The New York Times.
• Severin W., & Tankard, J. (2001). Communication Theories: Origins, Methods and Uses in Mass Communication (5-nashr). Nyu-York: Longman.ISBN  978-0-8013-3335-4
• Tanjong, Enoh; Gaddy, Gary D. (1994). "The Agenda-Setting Function of the International Mass Media: The Case of Newsweek in Nigeria". Africa Media Review. 8 (2): 1–14.
• Wanta, W.; Wu, Y.C. (1995). "Interpersonal communication and the agenda-setting process". Jurnalistika har chorakda. 69 (4): 847–855. doi:10.1177/107769909206900405. S2CID  144675769.^{[doimiy o'lik havola ]}
• Weaver, D.H. (2007). "Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming" (PDF). Aloqa jurnali. 57 (1): 142–147. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00333.x.
• Yagade, A.; Dozier, D.M. (1990). "Konkret va mavhum masalalarga nisbatan ommaviy axborot vositalarining kun tartibini belgilashga ta'siri". Jurnalistika har chorakda. 67: 3–10. doi:10.1177/107769909006700102. S2CID  146636236.

Silber, Radomir. Partizan ommaviy axborot vositalari va zamonaviy tsenzurasi: Chexiya siyosiy partizanligiga ommaviy axborot vositalarining ta'siri va ommaviy axborot vositalarining 1990-yillarda Chexiya Respublikasida hokimiyatni amalga oshirish ustidan jamoatchilik muxolifati va nazoratini cheklashlari. Birinchi nashr. Brno: Tribun Evropa Ittifoqi, 2017. 86 bet. Librix.eu. ISBN  978-80-263-1174-4.