8 Mass Media – Agenda-Setting Theory and the Propaganda Model (by Kylie Robertson & Amanda Williams)
Introduction
Media is ubiquitous, shaping our understanding of the world and influencing our opinions. This chapter explores its effects and why certain stories gain prominence. Agenda-setting theory, proposed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw (1972), suggests that media doesn’t dictate what to think but what to think about. Through selective coverage and framing, the media sets the agenda for public discourse, determining which topics become prominent and even prepare, or prime us, on what to expect or prioritize.
Furthermore, media serves as a conduit for propaganda, a concept analyzed by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988). This theory explains how media can manipulate public opinion to serve the interests of powerful elites. Media also acts as a filter (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). Their propaganda model suggests that media gatekeepers filter information based on corporate and government interests, leading to biased coverage and the marginalization of certain stories. This filtering process influences what we see and hear, shaping our understanding of current events and societal issues.
In this chapter, we’ll explore how mass media shapes our understanding and perceptions through agenda-setting and the propaganda model’s filtering processes. By critically analyzing media messages and staying vigilant against manipulation, we can navigate this landscape with awareness.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to
- Explain the foundational concepts within the theories of agenda-setting and the propaganda model along with their historical development.
- Recognize real-world examples of agenda-setting and the propaganda model in action.
- Describe the limitations of agenda-setting and the propaganda model.
A Brief History
Agenda-setting theory, introduced by McCombs and Shaw in 1972 with their seminal paper titled “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media”, aimed to explore the impact of mass media on political campaigns and public attitudes towards issues. In their study, McCombs and Shaw (1972) surveyed voters in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, asking them to identify their top five priorities in the 1968 presidential election. They then analyzed the coverage of these issues by nine media outlets—both print and television—that served this population.
Their findings revealed a striking similarity between the public agenda (the list of topics important to a specific population) and the media agenda (the list of issues considered important by the media) (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). However, their study only demonstrated a correlation between the two agendas, not causation. Subsequent research expanded on McCombs and Shaw’s work, and theorists established that the media agenda influences (or sets) the public agenda (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2023). This concept has since become a cornerstone in understanding how media shapes public perception and discourse (Griffin et al., 2023).
In contrast, the term “propaganda” originated from the Congregation for Propagation of the Faith, a group of Roman Catholic cardinals founded in 1622 for missionary work (Smith, 2014). The word carries a positive meaning for some Catholics, especially in missionary or ecclesiastical contexts. However, for others, it has negative connotations, evoking discredited stories from World Wars I and II, the propaganda of the Nazis, and broken political promises (Smith, 2014). It also brings to mind false and misleading advertising, particularly in countries with Latin languages where “propaganda commerciale” or similar terms are used for commercial advertising (Smith, 2014).
The connection between the historical understanding of propaganda and the work of Herman and Chomsky (1988) can be seen through their analysis of media manipulation and propaganda in contemporary society. In their influential book, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, they argue that media serves as a propaganda system for dominant interests, disseminating information that aligns with the agendas of powerful institutions such as governments and corporations.
Their propaganda model suggests that media organizations, driven by profit motives and corporate ownership, tend to prioritize stories that serve the interests of elite groups while marginalizing dissenting voices or alternative perspectives. Herman and Chomsky (1988) state that this selective reporting creates a distorted view of reality, influencing public opinion and reinforcing the status quo.
In connecting with the historical understanding of propaganda, Herman and Chomsky’s (1988) work highlights how propaganda techniques have evolved and continue to be employed in modern media contexts. While the term “propaganda” may evoke images of overt manipulation or wartime propaganda, Herman and Chomsky (1988) demonstrate how subtle forms of propaganda, such as biased framing and selective reporting, are pervasive in media narratives.
Foundational Concepts
Each of these theories has some key concepts of note, outlined below.
Agenda-Setting
Media Agenda, Public Agenda and Agenda-Setting Effect
The media agenda, as conceptualized by McCombs and Shaw, refers to the issues and topics that media outlets choose to cover and emphasize (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). Media outlets play a crucial role in shaping public discourse by selecting which stories to prioritize and how to present them. During events such as presidential elections, media outlets undergo intense scrutiny as they become the primary sources of information for the public.
The public agenda, according to McCombs and Shaw, represents the issues and topics that the general population perceives as important or relevant (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). When certain topics, such as immigration, are consistently highlighted in the media, the public may begin to view them as pressing issues. This influence can be seen through public protests, social media trends, and surveys, which indicate which issues have gained prominence on the public agenda.
The agenda-setting effect, as described by McCombs and Shaw, describes how the media’s coverage of certain issues can influence the importance assigned to those issues by the public (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
An Example in Practice
During a Canadian federal election campaign, if the media extensively covers climate change as a key issue, individuals may perceive it as a critical issue requiring immediate attention. Television news programs, newspapers, and online news outlets may consistently discuss the impacts of climate change, the positions of political parties on environmental policies, and the urgency of addressing climate-related challenges.
This media coverage aligns with the concept that the media does not tell us what to think but rather what to think about. The repeated exposure to climate-related issues in the media emphasizes the urgency of taking action to mitigate the impacts of climate change for the sake of future generations.
As a result of this extensive media coverage, members of the public may become more aware of the importance of addressing climate change. They may engage in discussions with friends, family, and colleagues about the need for action, participate in climate change protests or rallies, and express their concerns to elected representatives.
Furthermore, the agenda-setting effect of the media can lead to increased advocacy and policy action on climate change. Political candidates may prioritize environmental issues in their campaigns, parties may include climate policies in their platforms, and governments may introduce legislation or initiatives aimed at addressing climate-related challenges.
Overall, the media’s coverage of climate change may influence the public’s perception of its importance, leading to increased awareness, advocacy, and policy action on the issue, reflecting the agenda-setting effect described by McCombs and Shaw (1972).
Framing
Another concept often connected to agenda-setting is framing. While agenda-setting asks what issues people are talking about, framing seeks to understand how people talk about those issues.
In other words, frames are organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world.
Scholars like Erving Goffman (1974), whom you learned about when exploring symbolic interactionism, initially developed this concept, and it was later adapted to media studies by Robert Entman (1993).
Framing suggests that through selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration, the media transfer the “salience” (or importance) of attributes (Tankard, Hendrickson, Silberman, Bliss and Ghanem, 1991). By framing news stories in particular ways, the media may shape the way people interpret events, prioritize issues, and form opinions. More details on each such technique can be found in Table 8.1
Table 8.1
Framing Techniques
| Technique | Definition |
| Elaboration | Providing additional context, background, or explanation to enhance the understanding of a story, helping audiences grasp complexities and form informed opinions. |
| Emphasis | Highlighting certain aspects of a story or information over others, guiding audience attention and influencing the significance or interpretation of the topic. |
| Exclusion | The omission of certain information from a media message or story, potentially leading to a biased or incomplete portrayal of the issue and shaping audience understanding. |
| Selection | The process of choosing which information to include in a media message or story, influencing the overall narrative and shaping audience perceptions. |
Note. These definitions are adapted from Tankard et al.’s (1991) paper on media frames which they presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
In sum, framing highlights the powerful role that media play in constructing reality and shaping public discourse.
An Example in Practice
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the media significantly influenced public perceptions of the virus and the measures implemented to combat it. The framing of containment measures like mask-wearing and social distancing varied across different outlets. Selection occurred as some reports emphasized scientific studies supporting mask effectiveness, while others highlighted public resistance to mandates. Emphasis was placed on certain elements, such as social distancing, often overshadowing other important practices like hand hygiene. Exclusion was also evident, with less attention given to the psychological effects of prolonged isolation or the economic fallout of lockdowns compared to the immediate health risks. Finally, elaboration differed, with some coverage featuring detailed interviews with healthcare experts or showcasing successful community efforts, while others offered only brief, surface-level mentions.
Thematic framing analysis is also common in media studies with the following frames being highlighted the most often and open to large-scale data analysis. Some common themes often drawn upon can be found in Table 8.3. These frames are not meant to be exhaustive but provide a general overview of how many key issues might be explored.
Table 8.2
Different thematic frames commonly found when reporting policy issues
| Frame | Short Description |
| Capacity and resources | Availability of physical, human, or financial resources, and capacity of current systems. |
| Crime and punishment | Effectiveness and implications of laws and enforcement. |
| Cultural identity | Traditions, customs, or values of a social group in relation to a policy issue. |
| Economic | Focus on costs, benefits, or other financial implications. |
| External regulation and reputation | International reputation or foreign policy. |
| Fairness and equality | Balance or distribution of rights and responsibilities. |
| Health and safety | Health care, sanitation, public safety. |
| Legality, constitutionality, and jurisprudence | Rights, freedoms, and authority within legal contexts. |
| Morality | Religious or ethical implications. |
| Policy prescription and evaluation | Discussion of specific policies aimed at addressing problems. |
| Political | Considerations related to politics, and politicians, including lobbying, elections, and voters. |
| Public opinion | Attitudes and opinions of the general public, including polling and demographics. |
| Quality of life | Threats and opportunities for individual wealth, happiness, and well-being. |
| Security and defence | Threats to individual, community, or national welfare. |
Note. These definitions are drawn from the work of Card, Boydstun, Gross, & Smith (2015). Their work, “The Media Frames Corpus,” was published in the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (https://aclanthology.org/P15-2072.pdf).
Understanding common frames in media coverage is valuable because it helps individuals recognize potential biases and critically analyze information. By identifying how stories are framed, media consumers can assess whether certain perspectives are emphasized or marginalized, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the issues at hand. This awareness also enables analysts to predict how events or topics will be covered and helps professionals in fields such as public relations and journalism tailor their messages effectively. Additionally, knowledge of common frames enhances media literacy, empowering individuals to navigate the media landscape with greater discernment and critical thinking skills.
Priming
Priming is another concept closely related to agenda-setting. It explores how the media influences not only what people think about but also how they think about but what facets and or details may come to mind first and strongest. Iyengar, Peters, and Kinder (1982) proposed that the news media shape the criteria by which individuals evaluate public issues, events, and politicians by making certain information more accessible for judgments (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987).
In essence, priming works by activating specific information through repeated exposure in the media. For instance, if a political candidate’s integrity issues, such as accusations of corruption or dishonesty, receive extensive coverage, the media primes the public to prioritize trustworthiness when evaluating that candidate. As a result, voters may become more sensitive to any information related to the candidate’s trustworthiness, heavily influencing their voting decisions.
It has been shown that news coverage makes particular issues and events more salient for the public (Scheufele & Nisbet, 2007). Consequently, the media shape the considerations at the forefront of people’s minds as they assess public policy and politicians. When the media consistently highlights certain attributes or issues about a politician, such as their trustworthiness, voters are likely to give more weight to those aspects when making decisions.
In summary, priming influences what topics are on the public’s agenda and how these topics are evaluated. It highlights specific considerations that guide individuals’ judgments, ultimately shaping public perceptions and attitudes toward political candidates and issues.
An Example in Practice
Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario during a municipal election campaign where the news media extensively covers allegations of corruption against a mayoral candidate. Through repeated coverage, newspapers, television programs, and online news outlets highlight the accusations, presenting them as a central issue in the campaign.
As a result of this priming, voters may become more sensitive to any information related to the candidate’s trustworthiness. Every action or statement made by the candidate, whether relevant to the allegations or not, is viewed through the lens of integrity. For instance, if the candidate is seen taking donations from certain individuals or organizations, voters may interpret it as further evidence of corruption, regardless of the context.
News coverage makes specific issues more salient for the public. In this case, the media’s focus on the allegations of corruption primes voters to prioritize trustworthiness as a key factor in their evaluation of the candidate. Consequently, even if the candidate presents strong policy proposals or demonstrates competence in other areas, voters may still be swayed by concerns about integrity.
This example illustrates how priming influences not only what issues are on the public’s agenda but also how these issues are evaluated. By highlighting specific considerations, such as trustworthiness, the media shapes public perceptions and attitudes toward political candidates, ultimately impacting voting decisions.
Sources of Agenda Setting (The Gatekeepers)
When it comes to reporting the news, various sources can influence the media agenda, acting as gatekeepers in the process.
Table 8.3
Possible gatekeepers and examples
| Source | Description (hypothetical) |
| Other news organizations | Intermedia agenda-setting occurs when one outlet, often of larger size or scale, influences or sets the agenda for other publications. Example in practice: A story published by the Globe and Mail may prompt similar coverage in the Calgary Herald. |
| Emerging media | Social media platforms like TikTok can serve as ground zero for developing stories, with news often breaking there before being picked up by mainstream media. Example in practice: A viral TikTok series exposing a local environmental issue caught the attention of users, garnering thousands of views and shares. Eventually, traditional media outlets picked up the story, leading to widespread coverage and public awareness of the issue. |
| Partisan media | Outlets with strong ideological leanings, whether left or right, can set the agenda for mainstream media by driving narratives and generating headlines. Example in practice: If a prominent right-leaning media outlet extensively covers a story about alleged voter fraud, framing it as a significant threat to democracy, it may prompt mainstream media to follow suit and prioritize the issue in their coverage. This can lead to increased public attention and concern over the issue, shaping the broader discourse and influencing political discussions and policy agendas. Similarly, left-leaning outlets can have a similar effect by focusing on social justice issues or environmental concerns, influencing the agenda of mainstream media and shaping public opinion on these topics. |
| Candidates and officeholders | High-profile individuals such as political leaders can set the media agenda through press conferences and announcements. The media often attend these events and then report on them, shaping the news cycle. Example in practice: Imagine the Prime Minister of Canada calls for a press conference to address a new policy initiative. Media outlets from various platforms, including television, newspapers, and online news websites, attend the event to cover the Prime Minister’s remarks. Following the press conference, news outlets publish articles, broadcast segments, and post updates on their websites about the Prime Minister’s announcement. These reports become part of the news cycle, influencing public discourse and perceptions about the policy and the government’s actions. |
| Press releases | Public relations professionals prepare press releases on behalf of public and private entities, which can serve as sources of information for journalists and influence the agenda-setting process. Example in practice:A technology company launches a new smartphone with innovative features. The company’s public relations team prepares a press release highlighting the smartphone’s cutting-edge technology, sleek design, and competitive pricing.Journalists receive the press release and use it as a source of information to write articles about the new smartphone. Media coverage emphasizes the device’s unique features, comparisons with competitors, and potential impact on the market. As a result, the company’s press release influences the agenda-setting process by generating media attention around the new smartphone, shaping public perceptions, and driving consumer interest in the product. |
| Interest aggregations | Groups advocating for particular issues can demand attention and generate enough interest and noise for journalists to focus on. Example in practice: During the protests against racial injustice, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement effectively demanded attention from the media. Through organized marches, rallies, and social media campaigns, BLM generated significant interest and noise, prompting extensive media coverage of their objectives and the broader issues of systemic racism and police brutality.The media’s focus on BLM’s advocacy efforts led to widespread discussions about race, inequality, and police reform. Politicians and policymakers were compelled to address these issues, resulting in changes in policing practices and calls for social justice reform.This example illustrates how interest aggregations, like the BLM movement, can influence the media agenda and shape public discourse on critical social issues. |
| Editors | Editors are powerful gatekeepers who decide which stories get published and which get sidelined. Their decisions play a crucial role in shaping the media agenda. Example in practice: In a newsroom, the editor-in-chief decides to prioritize a story about a local community initiative to address homelessness. They assign a team of journalists to investigate and publish an in-depth feature article in the newspaper. The article generates widespread attention, prompting discussions among readers, policymakers, and community leaders. The editor’s decision demonstrates their role as a gatekeeper in shaping the media agenda. By selecting and promoting stories that address pressing social issues, editors influence public discourse and raise awareness within the community. |
| Algorithmic gatekeepers | Search engines like Google utilize algorithms that can influence search results based on users’ browsing history and demographic data, shaping what information individuals see when searching for news. Example in practice: When searching for news about a recent political event, two individuals with different browsing histories may receive different search results on Google. For instance, a person who frequently reads articles from conservative news sources might see search results that prioritize articles from those sources, while someone who often engages with liberal-leaning content may see results that prioritize liberal news outlets. As a result, the information presented to each individual is tailored to their browsing habits, potentially reinforcing their existing beliefs and perspectives on the political event. In this example, Google’s algorithm acts as an agenda-setting tool, influencing what news individuals are exposed to and ultimately shaping their understanding of current events. |
Note. The production of this table was based on the discussion by Griffin, Leadbetter, and Sparks (2023) in their chapter on Agenda Setting in their introductory textbook A First Look at Communication Theory (11th edition).
Each of these gatekeepers plays a role in determining which topics receive attention in the media, ultimately shaping public discourse and perceptions.
Propaganda Theory
There are five filters of propaganda proposed by Herman & Chomsky (1988). These are
- The size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass media firms.
- Advertising as the primary income source of the mass media.
- The reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power.
- “Flak” as a means of disciplining the media.
- Anti-communism as a national religion and control mechanism.
Each of these filters is further defined and discussed with an example in practice below.
Table 8.4
The propaganda model filters and example
| Filter | Explanation | Example in Practice |
| Ownership | Large multinational corporations own news media organizations, leading to biased coverage in favour of their interests. News outlets have an inherent bias toward the capitalist system, as criticizing it could endanger their financial interests. This filter limits the types of stories reported. | A news network owned by an oil company may prioritize positive coverage of the oil industry while downplaying environmental concerns or criticisms of corporate practices. |
| Advertising | News organizations depend on advertising revenue, so they tend to cater to an affluent audience and celebrate consumerism and capitalism. There’s pressure to produce content that won’t upset advertisers. | A news website might avoid investigative reporting on a major advertiser, such as pharmaceutical companies, to maintain advertising revenue. |
| Sourcing | News media heavily rely on elite sources such as politicians, officials, and experts due to economic necessity and reciprocal interests. This reliance leads to a narrow and biased version of events and issues in news coverage. | During a political scandal, journalists may primarily rely on statements from government officials rather than seeking perspectives from grassroots organizations or independent experts. |
| Flak | News organizations face negative reactions (flak) from powerful actors such as governments or corporations when they produce content that upsets them. Journalists may self-censor to avoid such repercussions, restricting coverage to an elite consensus. | A news outlet might receive backlash from government officials for publishing an exposé on corruption within a particular agency. In response, the outlet may avoid similar investigations to avoid further criticism or legal action. |
| The common enemy (anti-communism to terrorism) | During the Cold War, journalists internalized anti-communism, aligning news coverage with U.S. foreign policy goals. Similarly, after 9/11, fear of terrorism replaced anti-communism as a filter, demonizing U.S. foreign adversaries in news coverage. | Media coverage frequently demonized Iraq’s Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat to global security, fostering public support for the Iraq War. North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, is often portrayed as a dangerous dictator, reinforcing fears of the country’s nuclear capabilities. |
Note. These definitions are drawn from the seminal work of Herman and Chomsky (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
The propaganda model remains a powerful tool for understanding mass media’s power dynamics and persuasive abilities in perpetuating dominant ideologies. It suggests that the media “manufacture consent” by acting on behalf of powerful societal interests that control and finance them.
These interests can range from mega-corporations like Time Warner or Disney, which own controlling shares in media outlets, to individual owners like Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News and NewsCorp. For both types of owners, it is in their best interest for the media to normalize and naturalize the current power structures and dynamics of society, as it maintains their wealth and control. As Lukin (2013) notes, these powerful interests play a key role in shaping the dominant ideologies and managing public opinion by fixing the premises of discourse.
Connections to Why We Study Communications
Connecting back to Chapter 1, agenda setting and propaganda are intricately connected to the four primary reasons we study communication.
Firstly, they contribute to the formation of identity and relationships. Just as Mead suggested, communication shapes our sense of self and understanding of others. Agenda setting and propaganda influence the messages we encounter, impacting how we perceive ourselves and relate to different social groups. They play a significant role in constructing national identity and social norms.
Secondly, communication through agenda-setting and propaganda is vital for civic life, as emphasized by Dewey. These tools shape public discourse, influencing political decision-making and public opinion. Agenda-setting determines which issues are deemed important, while propaganda can sway public perception on political matters, impacting the functioning of democracy.
Thirdly, understanding agenda-setting and propaganda sheds light on the dynamic relationship between the audience and the producer. These theories explore how media messages are crafted and received. Agenda-setting theory reveals the power of media producers in shaping public discourse, while propaganda reflects attempts to manipulate audience perceptions and behaviour.
Lastly, communication, including agenda-setting and propaganda, plays a crucial role in discourse and power relations within society. Foucault’s work illustrates how discourse shapes societal governance and self-governance. Agenda setting and propaganda are tools used by those in power to control discourse, perpetuating certain power dynamics and influencing societal norms.
Limitations
Critiques of agenda-setting theory highlight several limitations. First, the theory was developed during a time when media were more homogeneous, professionalized, and nonpartisan. Its applicability is questioned in today’s media landscape, characterized by diverse sources and digital platforms. Media consumers are now more skeptical and potentially less media literate than before (Schmierbach et al., 2022). Secondly, the erosion of media authority and the rise of alternative information sources challenge the assumption of media influence on public opinion. With social media and personalized news algorithms, individuals have more control over the information they consume, blurring the distinction between the media agenda and the public agenda (Griffin et al., 2023). Thirdly, critics argue that the theory needs updating to account for these changes. The original Chapel Hill study focused on traditional media and may not reflect dynamics in today’s digital landscape. Research should explore how algorithmic gatekeepers and personalized news consumption affect agenda-setting processes (Griffin et al., 2023).
Additionally, critiques of the propaganda model, as noted by Klaehn (2003), include:
- Conspiracy Theory: Some critics dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, suggesting it portrays media operations as secretive and beyond scrutiny.
- Lack of Reporter Input: Critics argue that the model imposes meanings onto reporters and editors without directly testing their perceptions or decision-making processes.
- Neglect of Media Professionalism: The model overlooks the professionalism and objectivity of journalists, failing to consider how they may internalize biases or resist external pressures.
- Failure to Explain Resistance: The model doesn’t adequately address audience opposition or resistance to media messaging, focusing more on media production than audience reception.
- Mechanical and Deterministic: The model is criticized for being too mechanical and deterministic, ignoring spaces of contestation and interaction within the media environment. It overlooks the complexities of media dynamics and the potential for resistance or negotiation.
Summary
Theories of agenda-setting and the propaganda model provide valuable frameworks for understanding the intricate dynamics of mass media and its influence on public discourse and perceptions.
Three key takeaways from our exploration of these theories are:
- Both agenda-setting theory and the propaganda model underscore the significant influence that mass media wield over public discourse and perceptions. By controlling the narrative and framing of news stories, media can shape societal norms and perpetuate dominant ideologies.
- Understanding the filters through which information is processed is essential for developing critical media literacy. By analyzing media messages with awareness and discernment, individuals can better navigate the complexities of the media landscape and resist potential manipulation.
- Despite the challenges posed by evolving media technologies and audience behaviours, agenda-setting theory and the propaganda model remain relevant tools for analyzing media influence. As long as media continues to shape public priorities and perceptions, these theories will provide valuable insights into the dynamics of mass communication.
In essence, by recognizing the power dynamics at play within the media and developing a critical understanding of how information is presented and disseminated, individuals can engage with media more effectively and participate more fully in shaping public discourse.
References
Card, D., Boydstun, A., Gross, J. H., Resnik, P., & Smith, N. A. (2015, July). The media frames corpus: Annotations of frames across issues. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers) (pp. 438–444). https://aclanthology.org/P15-2072.pdf
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. G. (2022). A first look at communication theory (11th edition). McGraw-Hill Education.
Herman, E. S. (2000). The propaganda model: A retrospective. Journalism Studies, 1(1), 101–112. https://www-tandfonline-com.libproxy.mtroyal.ca/doi/epdf/10.1080/146167000361195
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Agenda-setting and priming in a television age. The University of Chicago Press.
Iyengar, S., Peters, M. D., & Kinder, D. R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the “not-so-minimal” consequences of television news programs. American Political Science Review, 76(4), 848–858.
Klaehn, J. (2003). Behind the invisible curtain of scholarly criticism: Revisiting the propaganda model. Journalism Studies, 4(3), 359–369. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/14616700306487?needAccess=true
Lukin, A. (2013). Journalism, ideology and linguistics: the paradox of Chomsky’s linguistic legacy and his ‘propaganda model’. Journalism, 14(1), 96–110. https://doi-org.libproxy.mtroyal.ca/10.1177/1464884912442333
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2747787
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda-setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9–20. doi:10.1111/j.0021- 9916.2007.00326.x
Schmierbach, M., McCombs, M., Valenzuela, S., Dearing, J. W., Guo, L., Iyengar, S., Kiousis, S., Kosicki, G. M., Meraz, S., Scheufele, D. A., Stoycheff, E., Vargo, C., Weaver, D. H., & Willnat, L. (2022). Reflections on a legacy: Thoughts from scholars about agenda-setting past and future. Mass Communication and Society, 25(4), 500–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2067725
Smith, B. L. (2024, April 18). Propaganda. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda
Tankard, J. W., Jr., Hendrickson, L., Silberman, J., Bliss, K., & Ghanem, S. (1991). Media frames: Approaches to conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, 1–28.