The mainstream media [MSM] has a number of subtle, effective techniques at its disposal to promote specific agendas through stories they choose to report on. The methods they use are nothing short of tactical rhetorical weapons unleashed upon an unsuspecting public.

There are several tactics employed in this rhetorical war. According to authors Dietram Scheufele and David Tewksbury, the primary examples are Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming. They discuss how these tactics are used by the media every day, even though for the most part we are unaware of it. As the authors explain, the emerging body of research on framing, agenda setting, and priming has signaled the latest paradigm shift in political-communication research.

UNM Professor Ilia Rodriquez analysed a wide range of texts in Diversity writing and the liberal discourse on multiculturalism in U.S. mainstream newspapers. She endorses the conclusion that “liberal discourse of multiculturalism” reinforces a narrative which still somehow manages to support the dominant values of “European-American, middle-class experiences” over any competing systems – while presenting itself as an inclusive model of American-ness. In other words, despite concerted efforts to appear inclusive and multicultural, the mainstream media still portrays the world through the eyes of the dominant, white, Judeo-Christian point of view.

Rodriguez points out that most writers take a patronizing view of “otherness.” They use linear narratives to promote what she refers to as the “dream ideology.” She identifies the subtle narrative strategies employed by journalists to mediate ethnic, class gender and racial tensions in the country, and she exposes the naïve, hegemonic spin given to issues of diversity.

Priming and Framing are terms used to describe the mass media’s strong attitudinal effects on mass audiences. But these effects also depend heavily on our own predispositions and stereotypes which influence how human beings process messages in the mass media. Framing differs from these accessibility-based models. It is focused on the assumption that the way an issue is characterized in the news has an influence on how it is understood by consumers.

Agenda Setting is a term used by many scholars, notably by Chomsky and Herman. This concept refers to the fact that there is a strong correlation between the emphasis the media places on certain issues and the importance attributed to these issues by mass audiences. By making some issues more important than others in people’s minds through Agenda Setting, media can influence public opinion on virtually anything.

Priming is different from agenda setting or framing. Agenda Setting focuses on the emphasis put on certain issues and how that bestows importance to them. Agenda Setting and priming are related in that mass media affects people’s judgment by making some issues more important than others. Both models are based on the mass media’s access to a large audience.

Framing is the assumption that the way an issue is portrayed in media can influence how it is understood by audiences. Agenda Setting explores the relationship between the emphasis which mass media places on certain issues and their ultimate importance. Priming is a change in the criteria people use to make political evaluations.

The template for the comparison between Framing and basic Agenda Setting is the ‘locus of cognitive effect.’ Media effects are much more complex than previously assumed, and they depend heavily on consumers’ own perceptions. In most cases, media producers and consumers (even very astute ones) utilize homogeneous networks and sources of information which tend to reinforce existing attitudes rather than change them.

The ‘locus of effect’ attempts to explain how labels are used in news coverage to describe an issue. It is the underlying interpretive ‘schemas’ made applicable to the issue that are the primary effects of a Frame. The main difference between Agenda Setting, Priming and Framing is the difference between whether we think about an issue and how we think about it.

Or as right-wing propagandist Frank Luntz put it: “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.”

Spoken like a true rhetorician.

References

Rodriguez, I. (2009). “Diversity writing and the liberal discourse on multiculturalism in U.S. mainstream newspapers.” 167-188.

Scheufele, D.A. & D. Tewksbury (2007). “Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models.” 1-20.