Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2452-0063
  • E-ISSN: 2452-0071
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The changing media environment has led to fragmentation of both media and audiences and thus to new flows of news items across channels and time. It has become challenging to clearly distinguish public and media agendas and their relationships. Our traditional way of counting single news items to determine an issue’s importance does not apply online. Articles are not scheduled into fixed publication cycles, they are moved, updated, or shared. Moreover, the variety of channels through which users encounter news loosens the connection between news items and their original source. We suggest “diffusion” as a concept to identify agenda-setting effects. News items are assigned different degrees of relevance by users clicking, liking, or sharing it. In turn, such relevance can affect others in assigning prominence to news items. The diffusion process results in a shared agenda which is constantly modified and updated by the entire community of online actors.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abrahamson, E.
    (1991) Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 586–612. doi:  10.5465/amr.1991.4279484
    https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279484 [Google Scholar]
  2. Adam, S. T., Häussler, T., Schmid-Petri, H., & Weber, U.
    (2016) Identifying and analyzing hyperlink issue networks. InG. Vowe & P. Henn (Eds.), Political communication in the online world. Theoretical approaches and research designs (pp.233–247). doi:  10.4324/9781315707495
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315707495 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, C. W.
    (2011) Between creative and quantified audiences: Web metrics and changing patterns of newswork in local US newsrooms. Journalism, 12, 550–566. doi:  10.1177/1464884911402451
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911402451 [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkinson, M. L., Lovett, J., & Baumgartner, F. R.
    (2014) Measuring the media agenda. Political Communication, 31, 355–380. doi:  10.1080/10584609.2013.828139
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.828139 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., & Adamic, L.
    (2012) The role of social networks in information diffusion. InA. Mille (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web (pp.519–528). doi:  10.1145/2187836.2187907
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2187836.2187907 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beam, M. A., & Kosicki, G. M.
    (2014) Personalized news portals: Filtering systems and increased news exposure. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 59–77. doi:  10.1177/1077699013514411
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013514411 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S.
    (2008) A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707–731. doi:  10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2008.00410.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Bright, J., & Nicholls, T.
    (2014) The life and death of political news measuring the impact of the audience agenda using online data. Social Science Computer Review, 32, 170–181. doi:  10.1177/0894439313506845
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313506845 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brosius, H.-B., & Kepplinger, H. M.
    (1995) Killer and victim issues: Issue competition in the agenda-setting process of German television. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7, 211–231. doi:  10.1093/ijpor/7.3.211
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/7.3.211 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brosius, H.-B., & Weimann, G.
    (1996) Who sets the agenda? Agenda-setting as a two-step flow. Communication Research, 23, 561–580. doi:  10.1177/009365096023005002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023005002 [Google Scholar]
  11. Deutschmann, P. J., & Danielson, W. A.
    (1960) Diffusion of knowledge of the major news story. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 37, 345–355. doi:  10.1177/107769906003700301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769906003700301 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K.
    (2017) Are news audiences increasingly fragmented? A cross-national comparative analysis of cross-platform news audience fragmentation and duplication. Journal of Communication, 67, 476–498. doi:  10.1111/jcom.12315
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12315 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gentzkow, M.
    (2017) Small media, big impact. Science, 358(6364), 726–727. doi:  10.1126/science.aar2579
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar2579 [Google Scholar]
  14. Guille, A., Hacid, H., Favre, C., & Zighed, D. A.
    (2013) Information diffusion in online social networks: A survey. SIGMOD Record, 42(2), 17–28. doi:  10.1145/2503792.2503797
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2503792.2503797 [Google Scholar]
  15. Guo, L., & Vargo, C. J.
    (2017) Global intermedia agenda setting: A big data analysis of international news flow. Journal of Communication, 67, 499–520. doi:  10.1111/jcom.12311
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12311 [Google Scholar]
  16. Guo, L., Vu, H. T., & McCombs, M. E.
    (2012) An expanded perspective on agenda-setting effects. Exploring the third level of agenda setting. Revista de Comunicación, 11, 51–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Haim, M., Kümpel, A. S., & Brosius, H.-B.
    (2018) Popularity cues in online media: A review of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and general effects. Studies in Communication and Media, 7, 186–207. doi:  10.5771/2192‑4007‑2018‑2‑58
    https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2018-2-58 [Google Scholar]
  18. Haim, M., Weimann, G., & Brosius, H.-B.
    (2018) Who sets the cyber agenda? Intermedia agenda-setting online: The case of Edward Snowden’s NSA revelations. Journal of Computational Social Science, 1, 277–294. doi:  10.1007/s42001‑018‑0016‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-018-0016-y [Google Scholar]
  19. Karnowski, V.
    (2017) Diffusionstheorie (2nd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos. 10.5771/9783845263410
    https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845263410 [Google Scholar]
  20. Karnowski, V., Kümpel, A. S., Leiner, D., & Leonhard, L.
    (2018, May). Artikel- oder Themeneigenschaften: Wie lässt sich die Verbreitung von Nachrichtenartikeln auf sozialen Netzwerkseiten erklären?Paper presented to theAnnual Meeting of the German Communication Association (DFPUK), Mannheim, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Keyling, T., & Jünger, J.
    (2016) Observing online content. InG. Vowe & P. Henn (Eds.), Political communication in the online world. Theoretical approaches and research designs (pp.183–200). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Keyling, T., Karnowski, V., & Leiner, D.
    (2013) Nachrichtendiffusion in der virtuellen MediaPolis sozialer Netzwerke: Wie sich Nachrichtenartikel über Facebook, Twitter und Google+ verbreiten. InB. Pfetsch, J. Greyer, & J. Trebbe (Eds.), MediaPolis – Kommunikation zwischen Boulevard und Parlament. Strukturen, Entwicklungen und Probleme von politischer und zivilgesellschaftlicher Öffentlichkeit (pp.209–227). Konstanz: UVK.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. King, G., Schneer, B., & White, A.
    (2017) How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas. Science, 358(6364), 776–780. doi:  10.1126/science.aao1100
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao1100 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kleinnijenhuis, J., & Walter, A. S.
    (2014) News, discussion, and associative issue ownership: Instability at the micro level versus stability at the macro level. International Journal of Press/Politics, 19, 226–245. doi:  10.1177/1940161213520043
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161213520043 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee, J. K.
    (2007) The effect of the internet on homogeneity of the media agenda: A test of the fragmentation thesis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 745–760. doi:  10.1177/107769900708400406
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900708400406 [Google Scholar]
  26. Luhmann, N.
    (1995) Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. McCombs, M. E.
    (2012) Civic osmosis: The social impact of media. Comunicación y Sociedad, 25(1), 7–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L.
    (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187. doi:  10.1086/267990
    https://doi.org/10.1086/267990 [Google Scholar]
  29. McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H.
    (2014) New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 781–802. doi:  10.1080/15205436.2014.964871
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.964871 [Google Scholar]
  30. McCombs, M., & Stroud, N. J.
    (2014) Psychology of agenda-setting effects. Mapping the paths of information processing. Review of Communication Research, 2, 68–93. doi:  10.12840/issn.2255‑4165.2014.02.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2014.02.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Meraz, S.
    (2011) The fight for ‘how to think’: Traditional media, social networks, and issue interpretation. Journalism, 12, 107–127. doi:  10.1177/1464884910385193
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884910385193 [Google Scholar]
  32. Min, Y., Ghanem, S. I., & Evatt, D.
    (2007) Using a split-ballot survey to explore the robustness of the ‘MIP’ question in agenda-setting research: A methodological study. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 221–236. doi:  10.1093/ijpor/edm003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edm003 [Google Scholar]
  33. Napoli, P. M.
    (2010) Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Neumann, R. W., Guggenheim, L., Jang, S. M., & Bae, S. Y.
    (2014) The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 193–214. doi:  10.1111/jcom.12088
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12088 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pew Research Center
    Pew Research Center (2017) How Americans encounter, recall and act upon digital news. Retrieved fromassets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2017/02/08183209/PJ_2017.02.09_Experiential_FINAL.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Roberts, M., Wanta, W., & Dzwo, T.-H. D.
    (2002) Agenda setting and issue salience online. Communication Research, 29, 452–465. doi:  10.1177/0093650202029004004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202029004004 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rogers, E. M.
    (1983) Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2000) Reflections on news event diffusion research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 561–576. doi:  10.1177/107769900007700307
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700307 [Google Scholar]
  39. Scharkow, M., & Vogelgesang, J.
    (2011) Measuring the public agenda using search engine queries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23, 104–113. doi:  10.1093/ijpor/edq048
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq048 [Google Scholar]
  40. Shaw, D. L., & Colistra, R. F.
    (2008) Agenda melding. InL. Kaid & C. Holtz-Bacha (Eds.), Encyclopedia of political communication (p.12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:  10.4135/9781412953993.n10
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412953993.n10 [Google Scholar]
  41. Shaw, D. L., Hamm, B. J., & Terry, T. C.
    (2006) Vertical versus horizontal media: Using agenda-setting and audience agenda-melding to create public information strategies in the emerging papyrus society. Military Review, 86(6), 13–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Shehata, A., & Strömbäck, J.
    (2013) Not (yet) a new era of minimal effects: A study of agenda setting at the aggregate and individual levels. International Journal of Press/Politics, 18, 234–255. doi:  10.1177/1940161212473831
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161212473831 [Google Scholar]
  43. Singer, J. B.
    (2014) User-generated visibility: Secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space. New Media & Society, 16(1), 55–73. doi:  10.1177/1461444813477833
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813477833 [Google Scholar]
  44. Susarla, A., Oh, J.-H., & Tan, Y.
    (2012) Social networks and the diffusion of user-generated content: Evidence from YouTube. Information Systems Research, 23(1), 23–41. 10.1287/isre.1100.0339
    https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0339 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tan, Y., & Weaver, D. H.
    (2013) Agenda diversity and agenda setting from 1956 to 2004. Journalism Studies, 14, 773–789. doi:  10.1080/1461670X.2012.748516
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.748516 [Google Scholar]
  46. Vargo, C. J., & Guo, L.
    (2017) Networks, big data, and intermedia agenda setting: An analysis of traditional, partisan, and emerging online U.S. news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94, 1031–1055. doi:  10.1177/1077699016679976
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016679976 [Google Scholar]
  47. Vargo, C. J., Guo, L., McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L.
    (2014) Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Communication, 64, 296–316. doi:  10.1111/jcom.12089
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12089 [Google Scholar]
  48. Weaver, D. H.
    (2007) Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming. Journal of Communication, 57, 142–147. doi:  10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2006.00333.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00333.x [Google Scholar]
  49. Webster, J. G., & Ksiazek, T. B.
    (2012) The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication, 62, 39–56. doi:  10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2011.01616.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01616.x [Google Scholar]
  50. Weimann, G., & Brosius, H.-B.
    (2016) A new agenda for agenda-setting research in the new media era. InG. Vowe & P. Henn (Eds.), Political communication in the online world. Theoretical approaches and research designs (pp.26–44). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wejnert, B.
    (2002) Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297–326. doi:  10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141051
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141051 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error