Framing And Spiral Of Silence-Theories of Communication-Handouts, Lecture notes of Theories of Communication

Download Framing And Spiral Of Silence-Theories of Communication-Handouts and more Lecture notes Theories of Communication in PDF only on Docsity! Theories of Communication – MCM 511 VU © Copyright Virtual University of Pakistan 108 LESSON 34 FRAMING & SPIRAL OF SILENCE Two levels of agenda setting In addition to considering contingency factors that might influence agenda setting, other theorists have extended the theory to consider different levels of agenda setting. McCombs, Shaw and Weaver in 1997 make the distinction between first and second level agenda setting. First level agenda setting First level agenda setting examines the amount of coverage an object receives, while second –level agenda setting examines how that object is presented. First level agenda setting deals with the objects on the media and public agendas. This is the traditional domain of agenda-setting research in which media are seen as influencing what issues are included on the public agenda. Second-level agenda setting Second-level agenda setting considers attributes of these objects. At this level , the media not only suggest what the public think about but also influence how people should think about the issue. Thus, the ‘agenda of attributes’ covered in the media sets the ‘agenda of attributes’ for the public. Limited by time and space, news directors often have to select only a handful of stories, while leaving dozens of news stories off the air. News selection is at the heart of the agenda-setting process since the issues that fail to pass through the gatekeepers of the news also fail to give salience cues regarding the relative importance of the issues. This is particularly true of international news events that happen beyond the direct experience of most news consumers. Framing The concept of framing is central to a consideration of second-level agenda setting. In the context of agenda setting framing is a process through which the media emphasize some aspects of reality and downplay other aspects. Framing is "the subtle selection of certain aspects of an issue by the media to make them more important and thus to emphasize a particular cause of some phenomenon". To frame, according to Entman, is to “select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communication text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. Framing can be accomplished through the consideration of a particular subtopics, through the narrative form and tone of the presentation, and through particular details included in the media coverage. It is as a result of factors such as framing that Dearing and Rogers conclude "under certain conditions the media of mass communication tell us how to think about issues and, therefore, what to think". This conclusion - stronger than the traditional agenda-setting outlook - indicates the importance of the media agenda, and consequently the power associated with those who influence this agenda. The literature on agenda setting is voluminous and wide ranging. Rogers, Dearing and Bregman in 1993 note over 200 articles onto topic in their bibliographic review, and many more have been published since then. This review, however, points out that there are a number of ways to define the boundaries of the agenda –setting tradition. These could be referred to as broad scope definitions of the theory or narrow –scope approaches. The broad-scope definition of agenda setting involves the consideration of three related agendas: 1. The media agenda is the set of topics addressed by media sources e.g. newspapers television, radio. 2. The public agenda is the set of topics that members of the public believes is important. docsity.com Theories of Communication – MCM 511 VU © Copyright Virtual University of Pakistan 109 3. Finally, the policy agenda represents issues that decision-makers (e.g. legislators and those who influence the legislative process) believe are particularly salient. Spiral of Silence A somewhat more controversial theory of media and public opinion is the concept of spiral of silence. This can be regarded as a form of agenda-setting but one that is focused on Macro-level rather than micro-level consequences. In the words of its originator Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann: “observations made in one context the mass media spread to another and encouraged people either to proclaim their views or to swallow them and keep quite until , in a spiraling process, the one view dominated the public scene and the other disappeared from public awareness as its adherents became mute , this is the process that can be called a spiral of silence’. In other words, because of people’s fear of isolation or separation from those around them, they end to keep their attitudes to themselves when they think they are in the minority. The media, because of a variety of factors, tend to present one (or at most two ) sides of an issue to the exclusion of others, which further encourages those people to keep quiet and makes it even tougher for the media to uncover and register that opposing viewpoint. So Noelle-Neumann’s focus is not on micro-level conceptualizations of how average people come to perceive the public agenda; rather she is concerned with the macro-level, long-term consequences of such perceptions. If various viewpoints about agenda items are ignored , marginalized , or trivialized by media reports, then people will be reluctant to talk about them .As time passes, those viewpoints will cease to heard in public and therefore cannot affect political decision-making. She argued that her perspective involves a return to the concept of powerful mass media. During the summer and fall of 1965, Elisabeth Noelle- Neuman, the head of a prominent public opinion research institute in Germany, observed an interesting phenomenon. They observed the two major parties election in German election. The phenomenon in which predictions about the outcome seemed to sway the attitudes and behaviors of voters, led Noelle-Neumann to formulate the theory that has come to be known as the spiral of silence theory. The theory was first formulated and tested to explain puzzling findings in German politics where opinion poll findings were inconsistent with other data concerning expectations of who would win an election and signally failed to predict the result. The explanation offered was that the media were offering a misleading view of the opinion consensus. They were said to be leaning in a leftist direction, against the underlying opinion of the silent majority. The concept of the spiral of silence from a larger body of theory of public opinion which was developed and tested by Noelle-Neumann over a number of years. The relevant theory concerns the interplay between four elements: 1. Mass media 2. Interpersonal communication and social relations 3. Individual expressions of opinion 4. And the perceptions which individuals have of surrounding climate of opinion in their own social environment. Fear of Isolation So the main assumptions of the theory are as follows:- Society threatens deviant individuals with isolation. Individuals experience fear of isolation continuously .This fear of isolation causes individuals to try to assess the climate of opinion at all times. docsity.com