Agenda-setting theory has been the subject of various criticisms. As priming is most commonly seen as a consequence or extension setting, these can be said to also apply to priming.
As already alluded to, early critiques of agenda setting charged its theorists with failing to provide explanations for how agenda-setting effects occurred (Willnat, 1997). Although the promotion of accessibility as an explanation for the process has satisfied some critics, Takeshita (2005) argues that questions remain over the validity of this explanation. In particular, he questions the assumption of equivalence held by some commentators in relation to salience and accessibility and suggests that agenda-setting effects may occur through more than one process. This view that more research is required into the precise mechanisms responsible for agenda setting and the consequent causes of individual differences is shared by many proponents of agenda setting (e.g. McCombs, 2005), but does not cast doubt on the demonstrated effect of agenda setting on the public agenda as a whole. As such, while this point could greatly undermine the usefulness of this theory in studies concerned with individual effects, I suggest that it does not in the case of this study, which is concerned with potential effects on audiences as a whole.
A second critique of agenda setting concerns its inherent assumption of a homogenous media agenda at least at a national level. This assumption was born out in the original Chapel Hill study, which found substantial agreement across the nine media outlets that were the dominant sources of news identified by research
participants (McCombs and Shaw, 1972) and has remained a central assumption of the theory ever since. While one could hypothesize that media agendas may always have been more fragmented than agenda setting supposed, some commentators suggest that the rise of new media have facilitated a greater fragmentation of media and hence public agendas (Chaffee and Metzger, 2001). Others, however, claim that despite the potential offered by new media in this regard, media has in recent years become increasingly homogeneous (Louw, 2001, Witschge et al., 2010, Davies, 2009). I believe that possible fragmentation of media and public agendas is a
92
legitimate concern and will discuss it in the context of the Irish Times specifically later in this chapter. However, I also believe that these theories are relevant for this study regardless of how many media outlets emerge as they serve to demonstrate that NGOs should care about they are linked with certain terms in media content given that there is at least a potential for an agenda-setting or priming function.
A third criticism of agenda setting centres on the source of the media agenda.
Although there appears to be broad (but not total) agreement that a causal link between the media agenda and the public agenda has been established (Louw, 2001, Grossberg et al., 2006), agenda-setting theory can be criticised for failing to provide a convincing answer as to what sets the media agenda. Although other media are frequently cited in response to this question (Davies, 2009), there is an increasing recognition that more work needs to be done on identifying the sources of the media agenda itself (McCombs, 2005).
Finally, agenda setting has been criticised for its reliance on quantitative methods (Kwansah-Aidoo, 2001). While I accept that this may deem it unsuitable for certain types of research, I suggest that it does not undermine its usefulness in this or many other studies. In sum, therefore, while I acknowledge that valid and serious criticisms of agenda setting and priming exist and make extravagant claims as to the effects of media content unjustifiable, I suggest that the empirical evidence for these theories allow for modest claims as to likely effects, such as those advanced in this study, to be made.
4.3.4 Framing
Framing theory has enjoyed a rapid rise in popularity in mass communication research in recent years (Bryant and Miron, 2004, Weaver, 2007). This is despite its conceptual ambiguity or “scattered conceptualization” (Entman, 1993, p. 51), which has attracted considerable criticism (Weaver, 2007, Kim et al., 2002, Scheufele, 1999).
Framing theory can be traced to writings by Erving Goffman (1974) who saw frames as a means by which individuals make sense of the world around them. In general terms, frames can be said to suggest how issues should be thought about, thereby encouraging audiences to understand them in particular ways and,
subsequently, to respond to them in particular ways. One commonly-cited definition of framing was provided by Entman (1993 p. 52) who stated that “to frame is to
93
select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described”. Reese (2001 in Reese, 2007, p. 150) has criticised this definition for being overly restrictive in emphasizing manifest content captured in salience and proposed a broader definition of frames as “organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world”.
Much discussion of media framing theory, including a 2007 special issue of the Journal of Communication, has focused on its relationship with the theories of agenda setting and priming. In a view consistent with the 1993 definition of framing by Entman already cited, McCombs (2004) has claimed that framing amounts to attribute agenda setting. Perhaps unsurprisingly, several of the contributors to the 2007 special issue have disagreed with this view (Scheufele and Tewksbury, 2007, Weaver, 2007, Reese, 2007). In a detailed review of commonalities and differences between agenda setting and framing, Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) organise their commentary under the headings of news production, news processing and locus of effect. In the context of news production they point out that 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 an agenda setting one. In the context of news processing they suggest that audiences may need to pay more attention to news messages for a framing effect to occur than in the case of an agenda-setting effect. Finally, in the context of the locus of
cognitive effect they argue that the difference comes down to the theoretical
premises on which the two theories are based, which they are argue are accessibility in the case of agenda setting and applicability in the case of framing. As already described, accessibility refers to the ease with which particular ideas or associations are brought to mind. Applicability refers to the outcome of a message that suggests a connection between two concepts such that, after exposure to the message, audiences accept that they are connected (Price and Tewksbury 1997 cited in Scheufele and Tewksbury, 2007). The implication is that how individuals will react to particular media content will depend on their pre-existing schema of interpretation.
On balance, there appears to be a stronger constituency that support the notion of framing as a separate model than those that suggest it is a part of agenda
94
setting. However, it clearly comes down to how framing is defined with some definitions matching the core ideas of attribute agenda setting and others deviating widely from it. Considerations of the empirical evidence for framing effects are hampered both by its varied definitions and its relatively recent emergence. There has also been considerable criticism of existing framing research. Kinder (2007), for example, has pointed to the extreme reliance of framing research on experimental settings and called for greatly increased research in natural settings. The cumulative result of these limitations, which may simply be attributable to the emergent nature of media framing theory, is a marked hesitancy, even on the part of declared enthusiasts of media framing, to make significant empirical claims about media framing.
As noted already, framing theory will not be applied or relied upon in this study for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there is limited empirical evidence pertaining to framing theory currently available and this lack is particularly pronounced in relation to the effects of frames on audiences. Secondly, there is considerable theoretical ambiguity surrounding the concept making its application more
problematic than is the case in relation to the theories of agenda setting and priming.
Thirdly, it can be argued that framing sits more comfortably with research that is conducted from an explicitly cultural perspective and that either combines
quantitative research methods with more interpretative qualitative methods or applies interpretative qualitative methods exclusively. Finally, the definitions of framing that appear most relevant to this study already overlap with definitions of attribute agenda setting.
4.4 Discussion
4.4.1 Introduction
The theories of agenda setting and priming together suggest that media coverage (such as coverage of NGOs and legitimacy and accountability) can influence both the salience of issues on the public agenda and the ways in which particular issues are perceived. Put simply, these theories suggest that media
coverage can have a significant impact. Not only is this the case, but the fact that the Dóchas Code of Conduct on Images and Messages has been signed by 63 Irish NGOs (Dóchas Development Education Group, 2008) suggests that a large number
95
of Irish NGOs themselves believe that the ways in which they communicate or are represented as communicating has a significant influence. In Chapter 3 I argued that the ways in which NGOs refer to the concepts of legitimacy and accountability may indicate the extent to which NGOs are promoting development literacy and global solidarity and that the ways in which the public refer to legitimacy and
accountability in relation to NGOs may indicate the extent to which the public already exhibit development literacy and global solidarity. While I cannot reasonably assert that newspaper coverage (or, more particularly, Irish Times
coverage) necessarily provides an accurate reflection of NGO or public views, in this chapter my task is to more modestly argue that Irish Times coverage of how NGOs refer to legitimacy and accountability may reflect how NGOs actually refer to these concepts and that newspaper coverage of public references to legitimacy and accountability may reflect how the public actually refer to these concepts.
In this section I will begin by providing a justification for my exclusive reliance on Irish Times coverage and then discuss why I believe that Irish Times coverage may indicate NGO and public attitudes. I then discuss how the theories of agenda setting and priming suggest that media coverage linking NGOs with
legitimacy and accountability would influence the public agenda and how issues are perceived by the public. I conclude this section by discussing more generally why I deem these theories useful for this research.