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



50 years have passed since the seminal 1968 election study was conducted in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. A conference was held with formative theorists Drs. Shaw, Weaver and McCombs. Presentations clustered into 9 clear areas. First, there were areas undergoing theoretical expansion: (1) agenda building, (2) Network Agenda Setting (NAS), (3) Need For Orientation (NFO), and (4) agendamelding. Beyond the established areas, (5) new theoretical directions were proposed. Other work tested and validated the theory in the current digital and political landscape. This included work on (6) the current U.S. political climate, and (7) agenda setting in unique international conditions. Methodological boundaries were pushed, with presentations focused on (8) qualitative agenda setting and (9) best practices for big data and on social media. This article summarizes the aforementioned themes and synthesizes comments raised in discussion at the conference.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alkazemi, M. F., & Wanta, W.
    (2018) The effect of oil prices on the media agenda: A model of agenda building. Newspaper Research Journal, 39, 232–244. 10.1177/0739532918775655
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0739532918775655 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beam, R. A., & Meeks, L.
    (2011) So many stories, so little time. InW. Lowrey & P. Gade (Eds.), Changing the news: The forces shaping journalism in uncertain times (pp.230–248). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S.
    (2018) The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33, 122–139. 10.1177/0267323118760317
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317 [Google Scholar]
  4. Camaj, L.
    (2014) Need for orientation, selective exposure, and attribute agenda-setting effects. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 689–712. 10.1080/15205436.2013.835424
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.835424 [Google Scholar]
  5. Canes-Wrone, B.
    (2001) A theory of presidents’ public agenda setting. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 13, 183–208. 10.1177/0951692801013002003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692801013002003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Davis, C. A., Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F.
    (2016) Botornot: A system to evaluate social bots. InJ. Bourdeau (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp.273–274). Geneva, Switzerland: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. 10.1145/2872518.2889302
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2872518.2889302 [Google Scholar]
  7. Freelon, D.
    (2014) On the interpretation of digital trace data in communication and social computing research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(1), 59–75. 10.1080/08838151.2013.875018
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.875018 [Google Scholar]
  8. Friedman, A.
    (2016) Hashtag journalism: The pros and cons to covering twitter’s trending topics. Columbia Journalism Review.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Guo, L., Chen, Y. N. K., Vu, H., Wang, Q., Aksamit, R., Guzek, D., … & McCombs, M.
    (2015) Coverage of the Iraq War in the United States, Mainland China, Taiwan and Poland: A transnational network agenda-setting study. Journalism Studies, 16(3), 343–362. 10.1080/1461670X.2014.885198
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.885198 [Google Scholar]
  10. Guo, L., & Vargo, C.
    (2015) The power of message networks: A big-data analysis of the network agenda setting model and issue ownership. Mass Communication and Society, 18(5), 557–576. 10.1080/15205436.2015.1045300
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045300 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2018) “Fake news” and emerging online media ecosystem: An integrated intermedia agenda-setting analysis of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Communication Research. Advance online publication. 10.1177/0093650218777177
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218777177 [Google Scholar]
  12. Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., & Smith, M.
    (2013) Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 154–174. 10.1111/jcc4.12001
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Kümpel, A. S., Karnowski, V., & Keyling, T.
    (2015) News sharing in social media: A review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks. Social media + society, 1(2), 1–14. 10.1177/2056305115610141
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115610141 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S.
    (2010) What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?InM. Rappa & P. Jones (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp.591–600). New York, NY: ACM.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lee, J., & Xu, W.
    (2018) The more attacks, the more retweets: Trump’s and Clinton’s agenda setting on Twitter. Public Relations Review, 44(2), 201–213. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee, S. Y., & Riffe, D.
    (2017) Who sets the corporate social responsibility agenda in the news media? Unveiling the agenda-building process of corporations and a monitoring group. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 293–305. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Levendusky, M.
    (2013) How partisan media polarize America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226069159.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226069159.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lippmann, W.
    (1922) Public opinion. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lough, K.
    (2018) Intermedia visual agenda setting: Comparing wire service top photo distribution to what makes the front page. The Agenda Setting Journal, 2, 25–40. 10.1075/asj.17002.lou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/asj.17002.lou [Google Scholar]
  20. Lynch, T.
    (2017) President Donald Trump: A case study of spectacular power. The Political Quarterly, 88(4), 612–621. 10.1111/1467‑923X.12433
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12433 [Google Scholar]
  21. Maher, T. M.
    (2001) Framing: An emerging paradigm or a phase of agenda setting?InS. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp.99–110). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Marshall, T. C., Lefringhausen, K., & Ferenczi, N.
    (2015) The Big Five, self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 35–40. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.039
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.039 [Google Scholar]
  23. McCombs, M.
    (2005) A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6(4), 543–557. 10.1080/14616700500250438
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700500250438 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2018) Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L.
    (1993) The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58–67. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1993.tb01262.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01262.x [Google Scholar]
  26. McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H.
    (2014) New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society, 17(6), 781–802. 10.1080/15205436.2014.964871
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.964871 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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. 10.1093/ijpor/edm003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edm003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Newton, J.
    (2013) The burden of visual truth: The role of photojournalism in mediating reality. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781410605900
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605900 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pasek, J., & Dailey, J.
    (2019) Why don’t tweets consistently track elections? Lessons from linking Twitter and survey data streams. InT. Stroud & S. McGregor (Eds.), Digital discussions: How big data informs political communication (pp.68–93). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Peter, J.
    (2003) Country characteristics as contingent conditions of agenda setting: The moderating influence of polarized elite opinion. Communication Research, 30, 683–712. 10.1177/0093650203257844
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203257844 [Google Scholar]
  31. Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. J.
    (2017) Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 115–122. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.041
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.041 [Google Scholar]
  32. Scott, J.
    (2017) Social network analysis (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Shaw, D. L., McCombs, M., Weaver, D. H., & Hamm, B. J.
    (1999) Individuals, groups, and agenda melding: A theory of social dissonance. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11, 2–24. 10.1093/ijpor/11.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/11.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  34. Shaw, D. L., Minooie, M., Akiat, D. & Vargo, C.
    (in press). Agendamelding: How we use digital media to create personal community. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Skewes, E.
    (2018) Time delays are not enough; Media must call out lies. Journal of Media Ethics, 33(2), 97–99. 10.1080/23736992.2018.1435498
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2018.1435498 [Google Scholar]
  36. Trump, D. J., & Schwartz, T.
    (2009) Trump: The art of the deal. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Vargo, C. J., & Guo, L.
    (2017) Networks, big data, and intermedia agenda setting: An analysis of traditional, partisan, and emerging online US news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94, 1031–1055. 10.1177/1077699016679976
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016679976 [Google Scholar]
  38. Vargo, C. J., Guo, L. & Amazeen, A.
    (2017) The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New Media & Society. 20, 2028–2049. 10.1177/1461444817712086
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817712086 [Google Scholar]
  39. Vargo, C. J., Guo, L., McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L.
    (2014) Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election. Journal of Communication, 64, 296–316. 10.1111/jcom.12089
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12089 [Google Scholar]
  40. Weimann, G., & Brosius, H. B.
    (2015) A new agenda for agenda-setting research in the digital 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]
  41. Weaver, D. H., Zhu, J. H., & Willnat, L.
    (1992) The bridging function of interpersonal communication in agenda-setting. Journalism Quarterly, 69(4), 856–867. 10.1177/107769909206900406
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909206900406 [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhu, J. H.
    (1992) Issue competition and attention distraction: A zero-sum theory of agenda-setting. Journalism Quarterly, 69(4), 825–836. 10.1177/107769909206900403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909206900403 [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