Sociologists and others use the term “agenda setting” to describe the way that the media focuses our attention on some things and not others. In this way, media actors may not control how we think about things, but they may very well control what we think about.
This instance of agenda setting involves SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act. Media Matters put together this figure illustrating the relative number of television segments given to SOPA and other issues — the British Royal Family, the football player Tim Tebow, Casey Anthony and her missing daughter, Alec Baldwin’s behavior on a plane, and the Kardashian divorce — between October 26th, 2011 and January 12th of this year.
Data like this is often used to explain why Americans tend to be quite uninformed about important issues. For more examples, see this post comparing the covers of TIME and Newsweek in the U.S. and elsewhere. See also: Setting the Agenda on Trump and Setting the Agenda on Janet Jackson’s “Wardrobe Failure.”
Thanks to Dolores R. for the tip! Via Socialist Texan.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 27
Bextraordinary — January 22, 2012
You have a typo in your text. It reads "...
the British Royal Family, the football player Tim Tebow, Casey Anthony and her missing daughter, Alec Baldwin’s behavior on a plane, and the Kardashian divorce — between October 26th, 2001 and January 12th of this year." It should be "October 2011", not October 2001. I don't imagine many news agencies were talking about SOPA in October 2001! :)
Guest — January 22, 2012
"disinterest" means impartiality, "a disinterested witness." You meant "lack of interest."
JohnMWhite — January 22, 2012
The mainstream media silence on SOPA said everything that needed to be said about why the legislation was incredibly dangerous. Media monopolisation of old media demonstrates exactly what happens when you let corporations control the conversation and make business impossible for dissenting voices or true competitors. It was almost ironic watching them play the part of the villain so perfectly, telling the world why they should oppose SOPA in the very act of trying to bury any discussion about it.
Legolewdite — January 22, 2012
Well interest certainly peaked on Jan 18th when major sites (such as this one, to a degree) blacked out their content. Overnight support for the bill went from 80 to 65, while opposition rose from a mere 31 to 101.
Sadly I feel most "news" outlets (which I look at more as giant narrative-generating machines) really think what they're doing is reporting rather than creating the news. Maybe if they felt otherwise, some vestigal amount of responsibility would result in better coverage.
A.D.P-H — January 22, 2012
It's not just that news outlets aren't reporting the issue. I should probably dig out a reference but one online report I read did actually report on the Wikipedia black-out. It did of course not actually outline what SOPA is, nor its implications. Instead, the report consisted of ways in which the black-out could be circumvented (i.e. mobile wikipedia apps were unaffected). Not only is SOPA rarely talked about in the media, its not covered adequately when it is.
Francois Tremblay — January 22, 2012
I think you made a mistake in your entry title. It should be "Setting the Agenda and Malicious Negligeance of the Media towards SOPA"
John Hensley — January 22, 2012
It would be a tragedy not to point out that these news organizations are overwhelmingly owned by companies that live by copyrights.
ABC news is a real jewel. From what I saw last month while visiting for the holidays, their nightly newscast is now consistently formatted as two national news reports, followed by "cat up a tree" stories for the rest of the slot.
Kim — January 22, 2012
Does this take into account that television, being a visual medium, often uses clips/montages during segments? And which would you rather show, brilliant palaces or well-dressed people in large functions, or the text of a bill/footage of people discussing it?
I also wonder how the corresponding websites of the various networks dealt with SOPA in comparison to those other stories. Discussion of SOPA is pretty much all over the Internet, so I wonder if it's not so much the media deciding not to go with stories about SOPA but rather to focus the discussion in places where those people who care about SOPA would see it: the websites.
ahimsa — January 23, 2012
My personal solution, which does nothing to fix the problem of crappy TV news but which does keep me from wanting to throw things at my TV, is that I never watch TV news. I get news from the newspaper, radio and various news web sites.
As the author of The Information Diet put it:
"Seek. Not too much. Mostly facts. Eat low on the sort of
'information food chain,' and stick close to sources. If it's an article
about a bill in Congress, or even at a statehouse somewhere, going deep
and actually trying to read the bill itself is really, I think,
advantageous. And it takes a little bit of time to pick up. Bills ...
[and] house resolutions are not, the most entertaining things to read
for most people. But getting to know what our legislative language is
helps us, I think, become better citizens."
Amadi — January 23, 2012
CNN is owned by Time/Warner. Time/Warner was a top level corporate supporter of SOPA/PIPA.
ABC is owned by Disney. Disney was a top level corporate supporter of SOPA/PIPA.
CBS is owned by Viacom. Viacom was a top level corporate supporter of SOPA/PIPA.
NBC/MSNBC are a part of the NBC Universal conglomerate. NBC Universal was a top level corporate supporter of SOPA/PIPA.
Fox News is a part of Newscorp. Newscorp was a top level corporate supporter of SOPA/PIPA.
So what major US television media was going to actually cover this?
Anonymous — January 23, 2012
It warms my heart to know that the internet did not let this slide under the radar and that thousands of websites and people stood together to send a message to people who otherwise probably wouldn't have known or critically thought about what SOPA/PIPA are. Yes, the news stations may be owned by SOPA supporters and have a huge impact on public opinion, but when websites, such as Wikipedia and Google, start flexing their power, it cannot go unnoticed.
This graphic pretty nicely illustrates the overall effect of the SOPA blackout:
http://sopastrike.com/numbers/
cheap bras — January 29, 2012
Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!
Framing the Trayvon Martin Case: A Tale of Two Narratives; Tolerating Americans « Welcome to the Doctor's Office — April 15, 2012
[...] about what stories news organizations put their resources behind; in other words, what motivates media agenda? And how do news organizations decide which of these two narratives or frames should be used in [...]