Explain the "agenda-setting" theory and provide a contemporary example.

Hello there, let me explain this theory to you, trying to make it as easy to understand as possible.

The term "agenda-setting" sounds quite professional, but in essence, it's very simple. You can understand it this way: the media cannot tell us what to think, but it largely tells us what to think about.

For example, imagine you're chatting with a group of friends. What do you talk about? Usually, someone brings up a topic, like "Hey, have you guys seen that new movie that just came out?" Then everyone starts discussing that movie. The person who first brought up the topic has "set the agenda" for your conversation.

The media plays the role of that "topic-starter," but on the scale of an entire society. If a social event is featured on the front page of major news outlets, broadcast 24/7, and trending wildly on platforms like Weibo and Douyin, then we, as the public, will generally perceive "this event as very important" and feel the need to pay attention and discuss it. Conversely, if the media doesn't report on an event at all, no matter how significant it might be, it will struggle to enter the public consciousness, almost as if it never happened.

This is the most basic form of "agenda-setting"—the media, by repeatedly emphasizing certain issues, determines which issues the public will pay attention to and discuss.

Later, this theory evolved further. It's not just about telling you "what to think about," but also influencing "how you think about something." For instance, when reporting on the issue of stray dogs in a city, Media A might focus on dogs injuring people and spreading diseases, making you feel that this is a dangerous problem that needs urgent handling. Media B, however, might highlight how pitiful these little dogs are, advocating for adoption. You see, they are reporting on the same event, but their chosen angles (or "frames") differ, which can easily influence your attitude and opinion towards the matter.

A contemporary example: The COVID-19 Pandemic

This is an example we've all personally experienced, making it perfectly relevant.

1. Setting the "what to think about" agenda: In early 2020, when the term "novel coronavirus" first appeared, perhaps not many people paid attention. But soon, global media began to report on it extensively: daily updates on confirmed cases, lockdown policies in various countries, how contagious the virus was... Overnight, the COVID-19 pandemic became the world's sole topic. Each of us, whether we wanted to or not, was compelled to pay attention to this matter. This is a classic example of agenda-setting, where the media set "fighting the pandemic" as the most important global agenda, with all other matters (such as economy, entertainment, sports) having to make way for it.

2. Setting the "how to think about" agenda: When reporting on the pandemic, the different focuses of various media outlets also influenced our perceptions.

   • Some media constantly focused on "medical resource shortages" and "rising death tolls," which made us feel fear and anxiety.
   • Other media heavily promoted "vaccine development progress" and "the advent of effective treatments," which gave us hope and confidence.
   • Still others emphasized "the impact of lockdowns on small businesses" and "economic recession," sparking a major social debate about "saving the economy or saving lives."
   • In some countries, the media framed "wearing or not wearing a mask" as an issue of "personal freedom" rather than public health, directly leading to social division.

You see, even with the same pandemic, the aspects the media chose to report, and the words and images they used, directly influenced public emotions and judgments.

In summary: the media first shines a spotlight on a topic (agenda-setting), making you compelled to look at it; then, the media changes the color filter on that spotlight (framing), making the topic appear in different hues.