The Not So Hidden Agenda?

The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point Claude Shannon

I’m not going to question the influence media has on our lives. It’s everywhere; from our TV to out laptops and even our mobile phones. It’s no longer even about going onto to look at specific news stations or sites, we see it on our news streams on Facebook and Twitter. But, of course, from the millions of stories which happen every day, only a certain amount makes it to the news. While news values plays a large role in what stories we see and how much significance is placed on them, there is no question that the public, policy, corporate and media’s agendas play a role in what society sees and hears.

Before we look into agenda setting, let’s first look at what we mean by it. What we perceive as reality has been constructed through communication using shared language. We see, hear, read, type, say and even enact information which we’ve come across, and this shapes what we understand society to be. Basically an individual’s reality exists in the social relationships they engage in. The media play a large role in ‘constructing’ or ‘mediating’ the social world as we understand it. However, every person, company or group has a vested interest or preferred outcome they wish to see achieved, and this is where agendas come out to play.

When discussing mass media and agenda setting, there are two basic assumptions. Firstly that the mass media does not merely reflect and report reality, but also filters and shapes it, and secondly, that media concentrates on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.

As Katherine Miller states in Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes and Contexts, there are four interrelated agendas in society:

1.       Public – Topics that members of the public perceive as important

2.       Policy – Issues that decision makers are salient, that is, the legislators

3.       Corporate – Issues that big business and corporations consider important

4.       Media – Issues discussed in the media

In relation to Rogers and Dearing’s 1988 agenda setting theory, in which they only proposed three types of agenda setting and did not incorporate the corporate agenda, they argued that the policy agenda was primary a result of the public and media’s agenda. They argued that policy makers base their decisions on what society deems important and what issues are discussed in the media. I believe this to be a simplistic view. As Coleman, McCombs, Shaw and Weaver put it

“Agenda setting is the process of the mass media presenting certain issues frequently and prominently with the result that large segments of the public come to perceive those issues as more important than others. Simply put, the more coverage an issue receives, the more important it is to people.”

When it comes down to it, the media has to meet public interests, but the media can manipulate and bring importance to issues to get public response. Also, when we look to the policy makers, while they have to get public votes, by bringing their views and opinions to the media they can create a fiasco of public interest and debate. Of course, as Miller adds in, corporations and business have the power and money to alter public perceptions and even government policy. For Rogers and Dearing to say that it’s a one way influence is a very short sighted and doesn’t scrape the surface of the agendas which influence society.

In the 1920s Harold Lasswell introduced the “Magic Bullet” model of agenda setting. Despite having limitations of not considering free thought the differences we as individuals have in cognitive thinking (that is, thinking we would all just swallow the information the same way) this hypodermic needle idea illustrates the idea well.

“The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about”(Bernard Cohen,1963)

“Propaganda is used as a tool to help shape images in the minds of human beings in support of an enterprise, idea or group. Propaganda can be used to substitute one social pattern for another.”

Walter Lippman, 1922, argued that visual images play an important role in agenda settings. Just look at Hitler, while he used his propaganda for evil, you have to commend the man and Leni Riefenstahl for gaining so much public support through their use of images and propaganda.  

There are two types of agenda setting. The first is in relation to what the public should focus on in relation to coverage, the media outlets decide this based on news values and the agenda they have behind them. The second type is about the media forming how people should think about the issues in the first level, by manipulating information and the way it’s presented.

So after all that discussion, what does agenda setting actually do?

It transfers issues of salience from the news media to the public

It transfers issues of salience for both issues and other objects, such as political figures

Elite media can often set the agenda for issues in the media through other outlets

This leads us onto the agenda setting family:

Media Gatekeeper – the media outlet which choose the issues and stories the public get to hear; how individuals control the flow of messages

Media Advocacy – the purposive promotion of a message through the media (e.g. health and smoking)

Agenda Cutting – The cutting of news stories which result in them getting less attention and being cared less about, such as AIDS in relation to Bieber and Gomez’s latest date

Agenda Surfing – This is the bandwagon effect, where everyone jumps on board to continue promoting stories which get attention

The Diffusion of News – The process through which an important event is communicated and released to the public, for example when it’s released (after it happened or is there a gap it’s held back from the media), where is it filmed or reported from and how it is released (all out press conference or just a PR statement)

Portrayal of the Issue – How the issue is shown and presented effects the public perception; the pictures, tone, language, exclusion and manipulation of the released information

Media Dependence – the more an individual uses it, the more susceptible that person is to the media’s agenda; with mobile access, we are becoming more dependant and on news and information despite the agenda behind it

There are of course, like any other theory, strengths and weaknesses to agenda setting theory. However, what interests me most is the emergence of the 24 hour news cycle as well as the online new media – it puts agenda setting into a whole new world!

With online news it’s all about getting the stories out there fast, why publish it after it’s already been read and discussed by the audiences – be the first to post it and you’re off to a good start. With the fast news cycles you have to wonder how news organisations can still engage in the high levels of agenda as with the traditional news, which consisted of an evening news broadcast and a daily newspaper (plenty of time to discuss daily agenda!). Nowadays, the news hot times online are first thing in the morning, lunch time and in the mid-afternoon slump.

Yet, agenda setting still has a huge impact on social perspectives. In the lecture we examined politics and agendas. The media has the ability (perhaps only the elite media and the resulting agenda surfing affect) to put different political issues on the agenda, even if the politicians don’t think it is! This was viewed in relation to the carbon tax/global warming. It seems to be one of the hot topics every week in the news, especially in relation to the struggle of passing the carbon tax. In comparison to the UK, which passed the a carbon tax, the run up to it had very little media coverage, and even on the day it was passed, it wasn’t anywhere near the top story. Evidently the agenda of UK media outlets does not extend to the semantics of a carbon tax like Australia.

With the continued commercialisation of media, it will be interesting to see how the news stories we see in the future are affected by the public, policy, corporate and media’s agenda.

“Agenda setting is not always the diabolical plan by journalists to control the minds of the public but an inadvertent by-product of the necessity to focus’ the news”(McCombs 2004)

Our Top Story Tonight...

News values. We finally get into the nitty gritty of what constitutes a news story. As I sat down to write this, my first thought was of the opening of The West Wing season 1 episode 7.  While I can’t find a (legal) video to upload of the opening sequence, I have found a transcript:

C.J.So, let me see if I have this. 

[looks at Josh] A hurricane's picked up speed and power and is heading for Georgia. 

[looks at Sam] Management and labor are coming here to work out a settlement to avoid a crippling strike that will begin at midnight tonight. 

[looks at Toby] And the government's planning a siege on 18 to 40 of its citizens, all the while we host a state dinner for the President of Indonesia.  

[Sondra the journalist walks in and tries to get C.J.'s attention]  

C.J.Amazingly, you know what I'll get asked most often today? 

JOSHWhat? 

C.J.Sondra?  

SONDRAI'm sorry, C.J.... 

C.J.[Describing the first lady’s shoes] Black suede and velvet. Manolo Blahnik slides with a rhinestone and mother of pearltoe buckle.

The West Wing is a show about the inside workings of the White House. C.J. is the White House Press Secretary and despite all the other highly relevant stories of the day (the hurricane, potential workforce strike and hostage situation) the press wants to know about the First Lady’s outfit to the state dinner – typical!

So, let’s get back to the lecture content. A. Boyd says that "News journalism has a broadly agreed set of values, often referred to as 'newsworthiness'...”

News values can be broken down into four sections:

1.      Impact
- the gee-whiz effect from the audience

2.       Audience Identification
- working out what’s of interest to the audience, be it global, cultural, social, etc

3.       Pragmatics
- What is in the news and its creation, the ethics, facticity, practice/practical, current affairs, everyday (24/7 news)

4.       Source Influence
- Where does the information come from, especially in relation to the love-hate relationship that the PR-spin-doctors and journalism have

Of course we’re not all the same when it comes to news values, that’s why they differ from countries/cultures and even between different news services in the same area. For any news station, the news it produces takes the inverted pyramid form. Not only are the individual stories ordered from most to least important information, so too are the news stories presented in an order which news outlets believe to be the most relevant and engaging with the audience.

Traditionally news had the slogan “if it bleeds it leads” promoting stories about death, war, violence and accidents. However, with the vast emergence of local news stations, it’s turned somewhat more to “if it’s local it leads” with recent stories such as the floods and elections. Personally, when watching the news, I see the traditional slogan in use more often… probably because the producers have more fun using the rhyme to create the news!

So how do news stories take the order that they do? How do particular institutions shape their own news values? Obviously it’s all about ratings (at least for commercial media).  As such, it comes down to what their audience wants to see, and how they get more people to use their media.

Numerous academics/journalists have constructed and updated what they believe to be the criteria for news values. Galtung and Ruge outlined 12criteria in 1965:

Negativity

Closeness to home (Proximity)

Recency

Currency

Continuity

Uniqueness

Simplicity

Personality

Expectedness (Predictability)

Elite Nations or People

Exclusivity

Size

Further to this, Galtung and Ruge created three hypotheses:
The additivity hypothesis that the more factors an event satisfies, the higher the probability that it becomes news.

The complementarity hypothesis that the factors will tend to exclude each other.

The exclusion hypothesis that events that satisfy none or very few factors will usually not become news.

News values over the years have been transformed, moved around and edited. Judy McGregor in 2002 reduced it to four news values

Visualness – Appeal to TV/Online audience

Conflict – a tried & true news value… if it bleeds it leads!

Emotion – tied up with human interest

Celebrification of the journalist

It’s interesting to note that the latest set of values is from 2002. With the increase of internet news, it should be easier to track the news stories that have prevalence with audiences. For example, you only have to look on the home page of numerous sites to see the highest viewed trending articles. Though, I suppose, when viewing articles on pages such as Ninemsn the highest trending articles are rarely ever the hard hitting news and only the sensationalized or celebrity gossip stories. On that, it’s interesting to note that online sites, even when going on to look at the Seven and Nine news websites, the local news stories rarely ever go to the top of the news, and it’s the national/international/celebrity stories which continually make it to the top.

As for everything we have idealized notions, and journalism is no different. These include:

·         A first obligation to the truth

·         A first loyalty to citizens

·         An essential discipline of verification

·         Independence from faction

·         Monitoring power and giving voice to the voiceless

·         Provision of a forum for public criticism and compromise

·         Striving to make the significant interesting and relevant

·         Keeping the news comprehensive and proportional

·         Freedom to exercise personal

·         Conscience

What are the threats to newsworthiness? Three different aspects have been identified:

·         Journalism / Commercialization of media and social life

·         Journalism / Public Relations

·         Journalism’s ideals /Journalism’s reality

The harsh realities in relation to newsworthiness are that journalists have become lazy and incompetent, with information being untrustworthy, stories incomplete, misleading or just irresponsible. PR has also had a great effect on journalism, with churnalism taking over news stories, and PR tactics, propaganda, media falsehoods and distortion all effecting the news the audiences are exposed to. Hyper-commercialization also has allowed news cartels to form, controlling what news stories make it to the public eye.

We’ve also seen a shift in the audience. We as individuals are no longer just take in media, we can make our own stories – for example, a blog! As Jay Rosen says

The people formerly known as the audience are simply the public made realer, less fictional, more able, less predictable. You should welcome that, media people. But whether you do or not we want you to know we’re here. 

From Gultung and Ruge in 1965 to Judy McGregor in 2002, we see changes in media news value and general newsworthiness. We longer take a back seat, but create our own, and in view of threats to journalism it’s probably not a day too late. News is changing from day to day. We have different stories everyday, so it’s safe to say, each day brings new news values.

“News is what a chap who doesn't care much about anything wants to read. And it's only news until he's read it. After that it's dead.”Arthur Eveyln Waugh

The Best Coffee?

I was walking towards a café in The Valley when I say one with mass branding showing that they’ve been voted the best coffee in Brisbane; naturally I was intrigued. I walked in and saw banners across the wall of the store showing consecutive years of awards from an institution I’d never even heard of (and that’s saying a lot since I’m a regular at far too many coffee shops and state and nation competitions). So I tried a coffee. While it wasn’t bad, it certainly wasn’t the best coffee I’d tasted in Brisbane.

This situation got me thinking about competitions and awards for coffee. There are so many things that cafés get judged on that it’s just difficult which ones to take seriously. For example, I remember last year an online poll for the best Brisbane coffee. All you had to do was put your vote into the webpage (no grading system) and the results were constantly shown for the best voted coffee shop. At the start, when the only people who knew about the page were coffee shops owners and some of the big coffee bloggers (I had my in with one of the coffee champions and heard about it), the results actually indicated pretty well how I would have ranked the cafés of Brisbane. Then some of the coffee shops started promoting it to their customers to vote, even to the point they were handing out flyers for the website. All this really meant was that the masses would win the award and not the best coffee. The end result was that the big “chain” cafés got more votes leaving the independent and actually better coffee shops in the background.

 

This is the same with the awards that Michele’s patisserie for best coffee shop of the year, and McCafe the best coffee chain for customer satisfaction. These awards come down to the specific criteria of these institutions, however this just gives customers a false sense of what constitutes a good coffee. It just perpetuates the idea that substandard coffee is good, not opening customers up to what good coffee actually is.

Of course I understand that taste is a subjective thing, and we all value different aspects of coffee shops in different ways. For me I value the taste above all – if it’s good I’ll come back, if not there’s no real point. It can be a whole in the wall coffee shop for all I care, as long as the coffee is good! However, we often group coffee and the coffee shops in the same thing, judging the food, service, décor and other criteria into what makes the best “coffee”.  

I find the amount of awards that now roam the market as somewhat ridiculous; they just devalue the proper awards!

Annotated Bibliography

ODonnell, M. (2009). Gay-hate, Journalsim and compassionate Questioning: Journalsim's Response to the Matthew Shepard Case. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 19, pp. 112-125.

Marcus O’Donnell lectures in journalism at the University of Wollongong. He is the former editor of the Sydney Star Observer, Australia’s oldest gay and lesbian weekly newspaper. This indicates a knowledge and understanding of journalism and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) issues. O’Donnell begins by discussing the details of the murder of Matthew Shepard; a gay, 21 year old student from Wyoming. The author continues on to highlight the limited or negative media representations of GLBT persons, and the paucity of scholarly articles on the issue. O’Donnell argues that when GLBT hate-crimes are reported, journalists adapt a “tragic framing” angle to alleviate social guilt and bring closure to the public, hence discouraging active engagement in social and political reform. O’Donnell progresses to critique a 20/20 report by Elizabeth Vargas, claiming its sensationalised manner, which brought outrage and grief to the GLBT community, is a poor form of ethical journalism. O’Donnell instead promotes JoAnne Wpyijewski’s “compassionate questioning” and anecdotal style of article, which makes mention a wide array of theories on the case but provides no substantive argumentation in favour of any one in particular. The paper closes with the notion that all journalism articles regarding minority groups must be reported in a compassionate and moralistic way. O’Donnell has cited numerous sources, however, their use is sporadic. Therefore, some conclusions are reached without evidence or examining opposing views, causing the article to lose some credibility.

 

Kennedy, S. (2012, May 10). Obama Backs Same-Sex Marriage. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-10/obama-backs-same-sex-marriage/4001992

Stephanie Kennedy has over 20 years of journalism experience with many as the American foreign correspondent for an array of ABC shows; albeit not specifically versed on the human rights issues surrounding the GLBT community. Kennedy, directly after the lead, makes comment to the proximity of Obama’s announcement to the upcoming election, already pushing the angle of the story. She apportions much of the article to Obama quotes which outline his family as the catalyst for change. Midway through the article she brings attention to the Australian debate over same sex marriage with a quote from Julia Gillard claiming she will not change her stance. Kennedy highlights Obama’s previous and changing stances, mentioning Vice-President Joe Biden’s statement, and the abolishment of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation. Kennedy argues Obama’s stance will hurt his re-election bids as he will lose support of swing-states previously won (for example, North Carolina which approved a constitutional amendment to forbid any gay union or marriage) and of the “black” community who are opposed to gay rights. This article is very information based for Obama and Democratic Party, not making mention to the Republican’s stance on gay marriage. It is also the only article cited to include the Australian gay marriage issue as it is an Australian publication.

 

Baker, J. C. (2012, May 9). Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from New York Times Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html?pagewanted=all

Jackie Calmes has worked for The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times for over 25 years as the White House political and economic correspondent. Peter Baker is a political author and journalist for The Washington Post and The New York Times. This indicates these authors have vast experience with political issues. This article is written with highly emotive language, not using the inverted pyramid structure; something not typical to New York Times articles. Much of this article focuses on the speculation of the announcement after Joe Biden’s statement to the press, and critique of Obama’s lengthy “evolving” stance on gay marriage. It also analysed pro-GLBT legislative reforms, such as the abolishment of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy, and the promotion of overlooking the Defence of Marriage Act in the judicial system. This article takes issue with Obama’s religious stance as a Christian. Furthermore, much speculation is cast over the outcome of the upcoming election, claiming Obama has lost support from the African American community, older generations, white-collar workers and political swing states. It concludes with a promotion of the upcoming gay-rights fundraisers and Obama’s promotion of this human-rights based issue.  Unlike the other online article (ABC cited above), this articles agenda is more efficiently hidden in its lengthy nature.

 

The Economist. (2012, May 12-18). Puntuated Equilibrium. The Economist, p. 40.

The Economist is a weekly British economic and political magazine. While publically announcing its traditional liberal views, the magazine is held in fairly high regard for its journalistic integrity. The first part of the article defends Obama’s “evolving” view on gay marriage; an aspect which the other sources have critiqued Obama for. It does, however, notion that Obama’s stance was most likely a result of Joe Biden and Arne Duncan’s public statements in favour of gay marriage. Emphasis is placed on the pro GLBT actions that the Obama administration has enacted, such as repealing the federal Defence of Marriage Act and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. The last third of the article examines the North Carolina constitutional ban on same-sex unions and marriage, and the failed attempts of Colorado to be the first state which banned gay-marriage to allow civil-unions for same sex relationships. It finishes by citing a statistic that 50% of Americans support gay marriage, and that the Republican Party should also “evolve” in its views on GLBT issues. As this article is printed, it is limited in its words, such lacking some of the examples the internet articles contained.

And the Winner is...

What a weekend it was. The Melbourne International Coffee Expo was host to the 2012 AASCA Australian Barista Championships. With each state’s representatives fighting it out for the top spot, the nervous and anxious tension stayed in the air well into the time the results were being announced. With hearts racing, dreams on the line and the chance of glory imminent, the following results were announced:

Barista Championship:

1^st Craig Simon (VIC)

2^nd Will Priestly (TAS)

3^rd Janelle Kingsley (QLD)

4^th Jonny Pisanelli (SA)

5^th Matt Troughton (QLD)

6^th John Paul Sutton (QLD)

Latte Art:

1^st Scott Luengen (QLD)

2^nd Angus Mackie

3^rd Jen Marks

4^th Daniel Freer

5^th David Smith

6^th Adrian Zwicker (QLD)

7^th Ben Morrow

8^th Kaya Mc Carthy

Brewers Cup:

1^st Matt Perger

2^nd Dan Ye

3^rd Josh Tarlo

4^th Kelsey Carr (QLD)

5^th Andy Easthope

6^th Eileen Kenny

Cup Taster

1^st Fred Lullfitz (QLD)

2^nd Jonny Pissanelli

3^rd Craig Simons

So what’s next? The champions of the Barista, Brewer’s Cup and Cup Taster will be heading to Vienna, Austria in 36 days (June 12^th-15^th), and the Latte Art Champion representing in Seoul, South Korea on the 1^st-4^th of November.

I would just like to take this opportunity to say, not only a massive congratulations to all competitors and champions, but also a huge well done to our Queenslanders. Scott and Fred are the first latte art and cup taster champions, respectively, that Queensland has ever had. It also marks the first time that three Queenslanders have been in the final six of the barista category. Just goes to prove how the coffee scene has progressed and improved over the past few years!

Can’t wait for the World Barista Competition, only 36 days and counting – surely our champions, after the hype of winning has worn off, will be training like crazy do Australia proud. Best of luck boys!

Finals Day - Barista Comp

Live stream all the action from the Barista Comp from the link here!


It's finals day so the competition is heating up. Six Barista finalists - three of which are Queenslanders. Six latte art finalists - with our state champion Scott Luengen the only Queenslander left, and the brewers, cupping and coffee in good spirits are all being live streamed! 


Enjoy. The results will be posted tomorrow so stay tuned!

Australian Barista Championships

The best baristas of Australia will be in Melbourne today for the start of the Australian Barista Competition to compete for the champion title. The Melbourne International Coffee Expo, for the first time, will be host to the event organized by the AustralAsian Specialty Coffee Association (AASCA).

Categories of the event are:

• ·       Barista
• ·       Brewers Cup
• ·       Cup Tasting
• ·       Latte Art
• ·       Coffee Roasting
• ·       Coffee in Good Spirits
• ·       Ibrik

The winner of each category receives the prestigious Australian champion title, as well as a full-paid trip to the respective world championships in Vienna, Austria (June 12^th-15^th) or Seoul, South Korea (November, 1^st-4^th).

The event has expanded exponentially in size from last year’s on the Gold Coast, with the venue hosting hundreds of stalls of coffee related products. Quite literally, to fully appreciate each stall, it would take you two days to cover it end to end!

So who’s competing in the event? Today, Friday the 4^th, is the last chance qualifiers for competitors in the barista and latte art categories who competed in the state qualifiers but did not take out first place. As for Saturday and Sunday, these are when the rounds start to heat up with semi-final and final rounds back to back.

The most prestigious title is that for the barista category. In 15 minutes competitors must make four espresso, four cappuccino and 4 signature drinks for the judges, as well as talk the judges and audience through the beans, drinks and any other aspects the competitor wishes to discuss. Each competitor has two technical judges watching the use of the grinder and coffee machine, checking wastage, timing shots, measuring tamping ability and overall cleanliness of the work station. Add on to this four sensory judges to taste the coffee as well as a head judge, and you’ve got a lot of people judging you in a 15-minute time frame!

Queensland will be sending their share of contenders after the state qualifiers in November last year produced four state champions. Matt Troughton and Kelsey Carr, (Dandelion and Driftwood) are the respective barista and brewers representatives, Scott Luengen (Cup Coffee) the latte art specialist, and Fred Lullfitz (Di Bella) the cup tasting champion.

With the event still in the early stages, I’ll be anxiously awaiting the results of the semi – and finals respectively. Stay tuned people, the 2012 best baristas are going to battle it out so we know where to go for our best coffees in Australia. I can only hope Queensland makes it to the top!