Can Media Truly Determine 'What We Think'? Or Only 'What We Think About'? (Agenda-Setting Theory)

Hello! That's an excellent question, arguably one of the most classic and fascinating topics in communication studies. Many people feel that the media is "manipulating our thoughts," but how exactly does it do this? Agenda-setting theory provides a fantastic explanatory framework.

Let me use a real-life analogy to help you understand.

Imagine: The Media is a Restaurant, and You are the Customer

You walk into a restaurant, and the waiter hands you a menu.

Classic Agenda-Setting (First Level): Deciding "What to Think About"

What dishes are on this menu essentially determine what you can order today. If the menu lists steak, pizza, and salad, you'll choose from these. You're unlikely to tell the waiter, "Bring me a Buddha Jumps Over the Wall that's not on the menu."

This is the media's most basic function: It decides "what to think about" (What to think about).

The media is like that menu. Today's headlines are "Unemployment Rate Rises," the society section features "Soaring House Prices in X Location," and the international section covers "Escalating Conflict in Y Country." After watching the news all day, your conversation with friends in the evening will likely revolve around jobs, housing, and international affairs. What's on your mind are these issues "served up" to you. As for things not covered in the news, like "particularly harmonious neighborhood relations in a small town," you probably won't think about them at all.

By choosing what to report, what not to report, and how much coverage to give, the media successfully places certain issues onto the public's "mental menu," making people feel, "Oh, these are the most important things, worthy of our attention and discussion."

It Gets More Complicated: The Restaurant Starts "Recommending" Specials

Now, let's complicate things. Looking at the menu, you see a "Chef's Recommendation" label on the "Premium Angus Steak," with bold text next to it saying "Tender, Juicy, Melts in Your Mouth." Meanwhile, the "Vegetable Salad" is tucked away in a corner with small font.

Aren't you more likely to order that steak now? You not only know steak is on the menu, but you also learn about its "merits."

Advanced Agenda-Setting (Second Level): Deciding "How to Think" About These Issues

This is the evolution of agenda-setting theory: the media not only tells us what to think about, but also significantly influences "how to think" about these issues (How to think about it).

It "frames" the specific attributes of an issue by choosing which words, images, and experts to feature.

For example:
- Issue: A new candidate enters the race.
- Media A's Framing: Highlights his "business background," "decisiveness," "unconventional approach," interviewing business leaders who support him. After watching, you think he's a "reformer," a "doer."
- Media B's Framing: Highlights his "lack of political experience," "controversial remarks," "fiery temper," interviewing his opponents. After watching, you think he's an "amateur," a "risky figure."
See? The issue is the same (new candidate), but by emphasizing different "attributes" (decisive vs. hot-tempered), the media successfully influences your perception and evaluation of this person. It doesn't directly say "you must support/oppose him," but it builds a framework for thinking that naturally guides you towards a particular conclusion.

The Next Level: The Restaurant Starts Pushing "Combos"

A more sophisticated restaurant doesn't just recommend single items; it starts pushing "combos." "Steak + Red Wine" is the romantic combo, "Salad + Juice" is the healthy combo. Over time, you automatically associate steak with red wine.

Network Agenda-Setting (Third Level): Deciding How We Connect Different Issues

This is the latest development. The media can not only set the agenda and the attributes of issues, but also set the connections between different issues.

For example, if news reports consistently place "immigration issues" and "rising crime rates" on the same page, or always mention immigration examples when discussing crime rates, over time, the public's mind builds a "shortcut": Immigration ≈ Crime Risk.

This influence is subtle but incredibly powerful. It shapes how we view the world, making us feel that certain things are "naturally" connected.

To Summarize, Back to Your Question

Can the media really decide what we think? Or can it only decide what to think about?

The answer is: It starts by "deciding what issues we think about," but ultimately profoundly influences what we think.

The Starting Point (Basic Operation): Through the "spotlight" effect, the media decides which issues enter our field of vision, making us think about these issues. This is the foundation.
The Advancement (Refined Operation): By "labeling" and "highlighting," the media influences how we evaluate these issues, guiding us to form specific attitudes.
The High Level (Network Operation): Through "bundling," the media establishes connections between different issues, shaping our deeper cognitive structures and worldview.

Therefore, the media's influence is a continuous process from "setting the agenda" to "building frames" to "shaping associations." It might not implant an idea directly into your brain like in a sci-fi movie, but it can meticulously craft an "information greenhouse" where you naturally grow the viewpoints it expects.

In today's social media era, algorithms have become the new "editor-in-chief." Based on your preferences, they constantly serve you similar "dishes," making you more certain within your information bubble that your menu is the whole world.

Thus, maintaining critical thinking, exploring different "restaurants," and comparing multiple "menus" becomes especially crucial.