There is abundant evidence that the media significantly shapes public opinion and policy in a given country. People learn not only the facts about current events from the news but also the relative importance of specific issues by observing how much coverage they receive. The prominence of a story in a newspaper's front page layout, other front page displays, enormous headlines, etc., all indicate how important a story is that day. Salience can also be inferred from television news, including the lead-in story, time spent on the topic, etc. The significance of each issue is effectively communicated through the repetition of these cues across multiple days. The news media can direct the public's focus on the relatively few problems that ultimately shape public opinion.


ultimately media relatively shape


How to Cite
Hasanen Abbas Kadhim. (2023). The Power of the Media to Influence Public Opinion by Setting the Agenda. Texas Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 24, 21–28. Retrieved from https://zienjournals.com/index.php/tjm/article/view/4371


  1. Walter Lippmann, Public opinion. New York: Macmillan, 1922, p.29.
  2. Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, The agenda-setting function of mass media, Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 1972, 176-187.
  3. Wayne Wanta and Salma Ghanem, Effects of agenda-setting. In Meta-analyses of media effects, Jennings Bryant and Rodney Carveth, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum: forthcoming.
  4. David Weaver, Doris Graber, Maxwell McCombs and Chaim Eyal, Media Agenda
  5. Setting in a Presidential Election: Issues, Images and Interest Greenwood, Westport, CT, 1981).
  6. Ray Funkhouser, The issues of the sixties, Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 1973, 62-75.
  7. Maria Jose Canel, Juan Pablo Llamas, and Federico Rey, Federico, ‘El primer nivel del efecto agenda setting en la informacion local: Los 'problemas mas importantes" de la ciudad de Pamplona’. [‘The first level agenda setting effect on local information: The ‘most important problems’ of the city of Pamplona’.] Comunicacion y Sociedad, 9, 1&2 (1996), pp.17-38.
  8. Toshio Takeshita, ‘Agenda-setting effects of the press in a Japanese local election’, Studies of Broadcasting, 29 (1993), pp.193-216.
  9. Federico Rey Lennon, ‘Argentina: 1997 elecciones. Los diarios nacionales y la campana electoral.’ [‘The 1997 Argentina election. The national dailies and the electoral campaign’.] Report by The Freedom Forum and Austral University, 1998.
  10. Stuart N. Soroka, ‘Media, public opinion, and foreign policy’. Paper presented to the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 2001.
  11. Maxwell McCombs, Esteban Lopez-Escobar and Juan Pablo Llamas, Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election, Journal of Communication, 50 (2), 2000, 77-92.
  12. Lee Becker and Maxwell McCombs, The role of the press in determining voter
  13. reactions to presidential primaries, Human Communication Research, 4 (1978), pp.301- 307.
  14. Pu-tsung King, The press, candidate images, and voter perceptions in Communication and Democracy, eds. Maxwell McCombs, Donald Shaw and David Weaver. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997, pp.29-40.
  15. Shunji Mikami, Toshio Takeshita, Makoto Nakada and Miki Kawabata, ‘The media coverage and public awareness of environmental issues in Japan’. Paper presented to the International Association for Mass Communication Research. Seoul, Korea,1994.
  16. David Cohen, ‘A report on a non-election agenda setting study’. Paper presented to the
  17. Association for Education in Journalism. Ottawa, Canada, 1975.
  18. David Weaver, Political issues and voter need for orientation. In The emergence of American political issues, Donald Shaw and Maxwell McCombs, eds. St. Paul, MN: West, 1977. Pp.107-119.
  19. Eugene F. Shaw, ‘Agenda-setting and mass communication theory’, Gazette, 25, 2 (1979), p.101.
  20. Spiro Kiousis, ‘Beyond salience: Exploring the linkages between the agenda setting role of mass media and mass persuasion’. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2000.
  21. Patrick Rossler and Michael Schenk, ‘Cognitive bonding and the German reunification: Agenda-setting and persuasion effects of mass media’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 1 (2000), pp.29-47.
  22. Iyengar and Kinder, News That Matters, p.63. Although the evidence reported in this book concerns only television news, the bracketed words “and the other news media” was inserted because there is substantial evidence that all the news media can prime judgments of public performance.
  23. A classic presentation of heuristic information processing is Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, ‘Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability’, Cognitive Psychology, 5 (1973), pp.207-232.
  24. Iyengar and Kinder, News That Matters, Chapters 7-11.
  25. Lars Willnat and Jian-Hua Zhu, ‘Newpaper coverage and public opinion in Hong Kong: A time-series analysis of media priming’, Political Communication, 13 (1996), pp.231-246.
  26. Shanto Iyengar and Adam Simon, ‘News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming and framing’ in Do the media govern? Politicians, voters, and reporters in America, eds., Shanto Iyengar and Richard Reeves (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1997), pp.248-257.
  27. Hans-Bernd Brosius and Hans Mathias Kepplinger, ‘Beyond agenda setting: The influence of partianship and television reporting on the electorate’s voting intentions’, Journalism Quarterly, 69 (1992), pp.893-901.
  28. Hans Mathias Kepplinger, Wolfgang Donsbach, Hans Bernd Brosius and Joachim
  29. Friedrich Staab, ‘Media tone and public opinion: A longitudinal study of media coverage and public opinion on Chancellor Kohl’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1 (1989), pp.326-342.
  30. Daron Shaw, ‘The impact of news media favorability and candidate events in
  31. presidential campaigns’, Political Communication, 16 (1999), pp,183-202.
  32. Deborah J. Blood and Peter C.B. Phillips, ‘Economic headline news on the agenda: New approaches to understanding causes and effects’ in Communication and Democracy, eds. McCombs, Shaw and Weaver, pp.97-114.
  33. Philadelphia Inquirer, December 27, 1996, pp.A1&18.
  34. New York Times, January 17, 1989, p.22.
  35. David Weaver, ‘Issue salience and public opinion: Are there consequences of agenda- setting?’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 3 (1991), pp.53-68