Journalism today is full of agenda setting and while a lot of people today are clamoring for unbiased news stories and outlets. The idea of agenda setting is so complex and has both positives and negatives to it.
One of the biggest cases of agenda setting I believe was seen in 2014 after the shooting of Micheal Brown in Furgeson, Missouri. The news of his death, the decision to not charge the officer, and the ensuing protests all caused a stir within the media.
Fox News was a big contributor to the agenda-setting that followed the incident. Their coverage of the events framed Mike Brown as a "thug" and implied that the police actions were justified. Fox also concentrated on the alleged stealing that took place before the shooting occurred. They reframed the issue as one of a criminal or a law-breaking to further justify the actions of the officer through the criminal act was never proven. Fox also relied heavily on implication and stereotypes of young black men, falling back on the Trayvon Martain case, to imply that they are all potential criminals. …show more content…
When a network takes a story and runs with they are then in a way providing more information to the public because there is such an influx of coverage on the event. However, there are also cons to it as well the biggest being that many people take the ideas presented to them in news articles and take them at face value and run with these ideas without fact checking or further looking into them which can lead to a lot of misinformed viewers/readers. Also, when one story takes over and is continually covered it often means other stories are not being given the same attention and even slip through the cracks. This then further leads to a misinformed public as they are not aware of anything outside of the bubble of coverage of this one
One of the biggest cases of agenda setting I believe was seen in 2014 after the shooting of Micheal Brown in Furgeson, Missouri. The news of his death, the decision to not charge the officer, and the ensuing protests all caused a stir within the media.
Fox News was a big contributor to the agenda-setting that followed the incident. Their coverage of the events framed Mike Brown as a "thug" and implied that the police actions were justified. Fox also concentrated on the alleged stealing that took place before the shooting occurred. They reframed the issue as one of a criminal or a law-breaking to further justify the actions of the officer through the criminal act was never proven. Fox also relied heavily on implication and stereotypes of young black men, falling back on the Trayvon Martain case, to imply that they are all potential criminals. …show more content…
When a network takes a story and runs with they are then in a way providing more information to the public because there is such an influx of coverage on the event. However, there are also cons to it as well the biggest being that many people take the ideas presented to them in news articles and take them at face value and run with these ideas without fact checking or further looking into them which can lead to a lot of misinformed viewers/readers. Also, when one story takes over and is continually covered it often means other stories are not being given the same attention and even slip through the cracks. This then further leads to a misinformed public as they are not aware of anything outside of the bubble of coverage of this one