Agenda setting and framing are two distinct but related theories that explain how the media influences public perception: agenda setting is the media’s ability to tell us what to think about, while framing is the media’s ability to tell us how to think about it. In short, agenda setting determines the importance of topics, and framing shapes the perspective from which we view those topics.
Background: Where These Theories Come From
Agenda setting was formally introduced by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in their 1972 study of the 1968 U.S. presidential election in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. They found a strong correlation between what voters said were the most important issues and what the local media emphasized. This challenged the then-dominant belief that media had limited effects on audiences, suggesting instead that media could strongly influence the public’s issue priorities.
Framing has deeper roots, drawing from sociology and psychology. Sociologist Erving Goffman’s 1974 book Frame Analysis described frames as “schemata of interpretation” that allow people to locate, perceive, identify, and label events. In media studies, framing was popularized by Robert Entman in 1993, who argued that to frame is to “select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text.” Framing theory holds that the way an issue is presented—through word choice, imagery, and context—influences how audiences interpret it.
How Agenda Setting Works
Agenda setting operates through a transfer of salience from the media to the public. The process typically involves three levels:
- First-level agenda setting: The media tells us which objects (issues, people, or topics) are important. If news outlets repeatedly cover a story, audiences are likely to consider it a pressing issue.
- Second-level agenda setting: The media tells us which attributes of those objects are important. For example, when covering a political candidate, the media may emphasize their honesty, experience, or charisma, shaping how the public evaluates them.
- Third-level agenda setting: Also called “network agenda setting,” this newer concept (proposed by Guo and McCombs in 2011) suggests that the media can connect different issues in the public’s mind, forming a network of associations. For instance, if the media consistently links immigration with crime, audiences may begin to associate the two.
Agenda setting is not about telling people what to think but what to think about. The media’s selection of stories, the prominence given to them (front page vs. buried), and the frequency of coverage all contribute to the public’s perception of importance.
How Framing Works
Framing goes a step further by providing a specific interpretation of an issue. A frame can be seen as a “story angle” that highlights certain aspects of reality while downplaying others. Common framing devices include:
- Word choice: Describing a protest as a “riot” vs. a “demonstration” evokes different emotional responses.
- Imagery: Showing a close-up of a distressed individual vs. a wide shot of a peaceful crowd changes the narrative.
- Attribution of responsibility: Framing a problem as an individual’s fault (e.g., “poor personal choices”) vs. a systemic issue (e.g., “lack of economic opportunity”) leads to different solutions.
- Moral evaluation: Using terms like “tax relief” vs. “tax cuts” frames the same policy as either a benefit or a simple reduction.
Frames can be deliberately constructed by politicians, activists, or journalists, but they also emerge organically from cultural norms and shared values. The key is that framing affects how audiences assign meaning to an issue, which can influence public opinion and even policy decisions.
Choosing Between Agenda Setting and Framing
When analyzing media effects, researchers and practitioners choose between these theories based on their research question. If you want to know which issues the public considers important, you study agenda setting. If you want to know how the public interprets a specific issue, you study framing. In practice, they often work together: a news organization may set the agenda by covering a topic extensively, and then frame it in a particular way to guide audience interpretation.
For example, during a health crisis, the media might set the agenda by giving daily updates on infection rates. Then, framing comes in when they describe the crisis as a “war” against a “hidden enemy” versus a “public health challenge” that requires “community cooperation.” The former frame emphasizes conflict and fear; the latter emphasizes solidarity and collective action.
Common Problems and Misconceptions
One common misconception is that agenda setting and framing are the same thing. While both are about media influence, they operate at different levels of cognition. Agenda setting is about the transfer of salience, while framing is about the transfer of interpretation. Another misconception is that these theories imply a passive audience. In reality, audiences are active: they can resist frames, seek alternative sources, and form opinions based on personal experience.
A related problem is the difficulty of measuring framing effects. Unlike agenda setting, which can be measured by comparing media coverage rankings with public opinion polls, framing effects are often subtle and context-dependent. Experimental designs are commonly used, but they may not reflect real-world conditions. Additionally, framing can be unintentional: journalists may frame a story without conscious bias, simply by following professional norms like “conflict” or “human interest.”
Comparisons with Related Theories
Agenda setting and framing are often compared with other media effects theories, such as:
- Priming: Priming is closely related to agenda setting; it refers to the process by which the media makes certain criteria more accessible for evaluating issues or candidates. For example, if the media emphasizes the economy, voters may judge a president primarily on economic performance.
- Cultivation theory: This theory, developed by George Gerbner, suggests that long-term exposure to media (especially television) shapes viewers’ perceptions of reality. While agenda setting focuses on short-term issue salience, cultivation is about long-term worldview effects.
- Uses and gratifications theory: This theory flips the question: instead of asking what media do to people, it asks what people do with media. It emphasizes audience agency, which contrasts with the more media-centric focus of agenda setting and framing.
Template for Analyzing Media Content
If you want to analyze a news article or broadcast for agenda setting and framing, you can use the following template. It provides a structured way to identify key elements.
| Element | Question to Answer | Your Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Topic/Issue | What is the main subject of the piece? | |
| Placement & Prominence | Is it on the front page, top of the hour, or buried? | |
| Sources Quoted | Who is given a voice? Are they officials, experts, or ordinary people? | |
| Word Choice | What adjectives, verbs, or labels are used? Are they neutral or loaded? | |
| Imagery | What photos or graphics accompany the piece? What do they emphasize? | |
| Attribution of Responsibility | Who or what is blamed for the problem? Is it an individual, a group, or a system? | |
| Overall Frame | What is the dominant angle (e.g., conflict, economic, moral, human interest)? |
Sample (fictional): A local news report on a downtown homeless encampment. Topic: homelessness. Placement: front page. Sources: city official, a business owner, a homeless advocate. Word choice: “encampment” vs. “tent city” and “nuisance” vs. “crisis.” Imagery: photo of trash near tents, not of people. Attribution: city official blames state policy; advocate blames lack of affordable housing. Overall frame: conflict between business interests and social services.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between agenda setting and framing?
Agenda setting tells you what to think about, while framing tells you how to think about it. Agenda setting focuses on the selection and prominence of topics; framing focuses on the presentation and interpretation of those topics.
Can framing be intentional?
Yes. Politicians, activists, and public relations professionals often deliberately construct frames to sway public opinion. However, framing can also be unintentional, resulting from journalistic norms, cultural assumptions, or even the reporter’s personal biases.
How do I recognize a frame in a news article?
Look for the central organizing idea, the choice of words, the sources quoted, and the images used. Ask yourself: What is the story’s angle? What is left out? Who is the hero or villain? What solution is implied?
Do social media platforms use agenda setting?
Yes, but the mechanism is different. On social media, algorithms determine what content users see, which can set a personalized agenda. Trending topics and hashtags also act as agenda setters, but users have more control over their feeds than traditional media audiences.
Can framing be measured in a scientific way?
Yes, researchers use content analysis to identify frames systematically, and experiments to test their effects on audiences. However, framing is nuanced and context-dependent, making it harder to measure than simple issue salience.
Are these theories still relevant in the digital age?
Absolutely. With the abundance of information online, the competition for attention is fierce. Agenda setting helps explain why certain stories go viral, and framing helps explain why the same event can be interpreted very differently across political divides.