Mass media is an extremely cardinal ingredient in any democratic society. This is because it not only informs and educates the public about government’s activities, but also acts as a check for abuse of office by government’s officials. This is an extremely vital function in any mature democracy. However, according to Agenda setting Theory, mass media has acquired so much influence over people that it has become a key opinion setter. In essence mass media has, with time, acquired the ability and capacity to bring to the attention of the people what they consider critical. Proponents of this theory argue that it is principally set on awareness and information. Nevertheless, the theory has been widely accepted but with some underlying assumptions. To begin with, while mass media might have the capacity and ability to get the information out to the public, it does not always reflect the reality. Therefore, in most cases the truth is filtered, designed and shaped to serve a particular purpose. This is a critical assumption that must be considered in analyzing this theory. The second assumption, and perhaps more fundamental, is the fact that ,mass media has a tendency to concentrate on small issues and lead the masses into believing that it is those issues that matter the most.
Agenda setting theory can be evidenced in the American mass media. The ideal example of such cases is during a highly published political issue, court case or a presidential election. The 2010 Supreme Court ruling was no exception. The mass media was awash with political pundits and commentators on the impact and consequences of the case.
Noam Chomsky argues that the handing down of this ruling was a big blow to democratic gains that have been acquired through centuries of precedent. He argues that it was a sad day for true democrats who believed the government must be a reflection of the will of the people.
However, with the results of the ruling expected to take effect as from the next election, corporate bodies are expected to flex their muscles as they seek to place their men into the state. The same sentiments were echoed by the renowned New York Times newspapers, which referred to the ruling as ‘striking at the heart of democracy’. This trend was replicated in several other media outlets with tremendous influence on Americans. This serves to show how Agenda Setting Theory can be effective in influencing public opinion. Many Americans now believe that the ruling neither reflects the wishes of the majority of the citizenry nor their values.
The Supreme Court has contributed immensely in giving the corporate media the power and influence to shape public opinion. This is because it has not only guaranteed the freedom of speech as envisioned in the constitution, but also in 2010 made it possible for corporations to pour money into the media in attempts to sway votes or public opinion on a particular issue.
However, the Supreme Court has also been extremely transparent in its operation and, therefore, being able to use mass media to explain to the public about societal challenges, concerns and provisions on the law. One of the major effects of the Supreme Court’s decision will be intimidation of public officials by corporations. This is because corporation that will do political investments in people running for office will expect them to serve their bids instead of serving the interest of the American people.
References
Baran, S. J., & Davis, D. K. (2011). Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future. New York: Cengage Learning.
Carroll, C. (2010). Corporate Reputation and the News Media: Agenda-setting within Business News Coverage in Developed, Emerging, and Frontier Markets. New York: Routledge.
Chomsky, N. (2010, FEBRUARY 3). The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Democracy. Retrieved May 11, 2013, from inthesetimes.com: http://inthesetimes.com/article/5502/the_corporate_takeover_of_u.s._democracy/
