Agenda-Setting Theory: Explaining How Media Influences What People Think Is Important

Agenda-setting theory explains how #media_influence shapes public attention by making some topics appear more important than others. The theory does not simply claim that media tells people what to think. Instead, it argues that media strongly influences what people think about. This article explains #agenda_setting_theory in simple English for students while keeping the structure of an academic journal article. It examines the historical background of the theory, its major concepts, its use in traditional news media, and its continuing importance in the digital age. The article also connects agenda-setting theory with Bourdieu’s idea of fields and symbolic power, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism. These wider theories help explain why some voices, countries, institutions, and social groups are more able than others to place their issues on the public agenda. The article uses a conceptual review method, drawing on communication theory, sociology, political communication, and media studies. The analysis shows that #public_attention is never neutral. It is shaped by news values, ownership structures, platform algorithms, professional routines, political interests, economic power, cultural authority, and audience behavior. For students, agenda-setting theory is useful because it helps them understand why some issues dominate public discussion while other important issues remain invisible. The article concludes that agenda-setting remains highly relevant in the age of social media, but its mechanisms have become more complex. Today, agendas are not set only by newspapers, television, or official broadcasters. They are also shaped by platforms, influencers, search engines, advocacy groups, states, corporations, and ordinary users. Understanding this process is an essential part of #media_literacy and democratic education.

Introduction

Every day, people are surrounded by news, images, headlines, videos, podcasts, posts, and short messages. Students open their phones and see stories about politics, war, climate change, celebrities, artificial intelligence, education, health, sport, and social problems. Yet not every issue receives the same attention. Some topics appear again and again, while others are almost absent. Some events become global conversations within hours, while other serious problems remain unknown to many people. This simple observation is the starting point of agenda-setting theory.

Agenda-setting theory explains how the #news_media and other communication systems influence what people consider important. It does not say that audiences are passive or empty minds. It does not say that every person will believe everything they see. Rather, it says that repeated media attention can raise the importance of a topic in the public mind. When a topic appears frequently and prominently in media, people are more likely to think that the topic matters.

A simple example can help. Imagine that students are asked, “What are the most important problems facing society today?” Their answers may include unemployment, inflation, climate change, conflict, mental health, corruption, education, or technology. These answers do not come only from personal experience. They are also influenced by what students repeatedly see in media. If news outlets discuss inflation every day, inflation becomes a visible public issue. If they rarely discuss rural poverty, rural poverty may seem less urgent, even if it affects many people. This is the core idea of agenda-setting.

The theory became famous in communication studies through the work of Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, who studied media and public opinion during a United States presidential election. Their research showed a strong relationship between the issues emphasized by the media and the issues considered important by voters. Since then, agenda-setting theory has become one of the most influential theories in #communication_studies.

For students, this theory is especially useful because it teaches a critical lesson: public importance is not always the same as real-world importance. An issue may be socially serious but receive little coverage. Another issue may receive heavy coverage because it is dramatic, emotional, politically useful, commercially attractive, or easy to visualize. Agenda-setting theory helps students ask better questions: Who decides what becomes news? Why are some issues repeated? Whose voices are included? Whose voices are missing? What role do platforms and algorithms play? How does attention become power?

In the digital age, agenda-setting has changed but has not disappeared. Traditional media still matter, but they now interact with social media platforms, influencers, online communities, search engines, recommendation systems, and user-generated content. A hashtag can push an issue into public discussion. A viral video can change the direction of political debate. A trending topic can influence what journalists choose to report. At the same time, powerful institutions can still shape attention through public relations, advertising, ownership, lobbying, and access to elite media.

This article explains agenda-setting theory in a student-friendly but academically structured way. It discusses the theory’s foundations, its major concepts, its relationship with social power, and its relevance for education. It also uses Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism to show that the public agenda is not created in a vacuum. It is shaped by social fields, global inequalities, and institutional pressures.

Background and Theoretical Framework

Agenda-setting theory is based on a clear but powerful idea: media attention influences public importance. In simple terms, the more media emphasizes an issue, the more likely people are to see that issue as important. This does not mean that media controls every opinion. People interpret information through family, education, religion, culture, social class, personal experience, and political identity. However, media can strongly influence which topics enter public conversation.

The theory is often explained through three linked agendas. The first is the #media_agenda, meaning the issues that media organizations choose to highlight. The second is the public agenda, meaning the issues that people consider important. The third is the policy agenda, meaning the issues that governments, organizations, and decision-makers treat as priorities. Agenda-setting research often studies the relationship among these three agendas.

For example, if media gives strong attention to youth unemployment, the public may begin to see youth unemployment as a major national issue. If public concern grows, political leaders may feel pressure to discuss it. Eventually, it may become part of the policy agenda. This does not happen automatically, but agenda-setting theory helps explain how attention can move from media to public concern and then to policy action.

First-Level Agenda Setting

First-level agenda setting concerns issue salience. Salience means perceived importance. When media repeatedly covers a topic, that topic becomes more visible and more mentally available. Students can think of salience as the “space” an issue occupies in public awareness. For example, if climate change is frequently reported with strong headlines, images, expert interviews, and political debate, people may rank it as one of the most important issues.

First-level agenda setting asks: What topics are being made important? It focuses on the quantity and prominence of coverage. A topic placed on the front page, repeated in television headlines, discussed in podcasts, and shared widely online gains salience. A topic hidden in small reports or rarely mentioned remains less visible.

Second-Level Agenda Setting

Second-level agenda setting moves beyond topics to attributes. It asks not only what people think about, but how they think about it. If first-level agenda setting says, “This issue matters,” second-level agenda setting says, “These aspects of the issue matter.”

For example, migration can be presented as an economic issue, a humanitarian issue, a security issue, a cultural issue, or a labor-market issue. The same topic can be described through different attributes. These attributes influence public interpretation. If media mainly links migration with security, audiences may think of migration as a threat. If media mainly links migration with labor needs or human rights, audiences may understand it differently. This is where agenda setting connects closely with #framing.

Second-level agenda setting is important for students because it shows that importance is not only about visibility. It is also about description. Media does not only select topics; it selects angles, words, images, sources, and emotional tones.

Network Agenda Setting

Newer discussions of agenda setting include network agenda setting. This approach studies how issues and attributes are connected in people’s minds. Media may not only make one issue important; it may connect several issues together. For example, reports may connect artificial intelligence with jobs, education, ethics, privacy, and national competitiveness. Over time, people may begin to understand these issues as a connected network.

In digital media, network agenda setting is especially relevant because platforms link topics through recommendations, hashtags, search results, and user interaction. A student watching a video about university admissions may soon receive content about careers, student debt, artificial intelligence, scholarships, and migration. The agenda becomes a network of connected meanings.

Agenda Building

Agenda building refers to the process through which the media agenda itself is created. Media agendas do not appear naturally. They are built through routines, professional norms, political pressures, economic interests, cultural assumptions, and technological systems. Journalists choose stories based on news values such as conflict, novelty, emotion, proximity, impact, and elite relevance. Editors decide what deserves space. Owners and advertisers may influence priorities. Governments and organizations provide press releases and official statements. Social media trends may pressure journalists to cover certain topics.

Agenda building is a key concept because it asks: who influences the influencers? It shifts attention from media effects on the public to the social production of media content.

Bourdieu and Symbolic Power

Pierre Bourdieu’s theory helps deepen agenda-setting analysis. Bourdieu argued that society is made of fields, such as the political field, academic field, economic field, cultural field, and journalistic field. Each field has its own rules, forms of capital, and power struggles. In the #journalistic_field, actors compete for attention, credibility, audience trust, speed, access, and symbolic authority.

Bourdieu’s concept of #symbolic_power is useful for understanding agenda setting. Symbolic power is the power to name, classify, define, and make certain views appear legitimate. When media repeatedly describes an issue in a particular way, it can shape what seems normal, urgent, or respectable. For example, if educational success is always discussed through rankings, employability, and competition, students may begin to see education mainly as a market activity rather than a personal, civic, or cultural process.

Bourdieu also helps explain why not all groups can set agendas equally. People and institutions with more cultural capital, economic capital, social capital, and symbolic capital have greater access to media visibility. A government minister, university president, famous entrepreneur, or celebrity may easily attract media attention. A poor community, informal worker, rural student, or refugee may struggle to be heard. Agenda setting is therefore connected to social inequality.

World-Systems Theory and Global Agendas

World-systems theory, associated with Immanuel Wallerstein, views the world as an unequal system of core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral regions. Core countries often have stronger economic, political, technological, and media power. This theory helps explain why global media agendas may reflect the interests and perspectives of powerful regions more than marginalized ones.

For example, a crisis in a powerful country may receive intense international coverage, while a crisis in a poorer country may receive less attention. Scientific achievements, cultural debates, conflicts, and economic problems in core regions often become global issues. Similar events in peripheral regions may remain local or invisible. This does not mean that audiences do not care. It means that global attention is shaped by unequal communication structures.

For students, this is important because agenda-setting theory should not be studied only at the national level. In a connected world, the global agenda affects how people understand development, security, education, health, climate, migration, and technology. World-systems theory reminds us that #global_media often reflects global power.

Institutional Isomorphism

Institutional isomorphism comes from organizational theory, especially the work of DiMaggio and Powell. It explains why organizations in the same field often become similar. They copy one another, follow professional norms, respond to regulations, and imitate what appears legitimate.

This concept helps explain why many media organizations cover the same issues in similar ways. News outlets watch competitors. Journalists follow professional routines. Editors respond to trends. Universities, governments, companies, and NGOs shape media attention through similar communication strategies. As a result, the public may see the same topics repeated across many outlets.

There are three common forms of institutional isomorphism. Coercive isomorphism comes from formal or informal pressure, such as laws, political expectations, or funding structures. Mimetic isomorphism happens when organizations copy others during uncertainty. Normative isomorphism comes from professional education and shared standards. In media, these processes can make coverage look diverse on the surface but similar in deeper agenda structure.

Method

This article uses a conceptual review method. A conceptual review does not collect survey responses or conduct an experiment. Instead, it explains, organizes, and connects existing ideas. The purpose is educational and theoretical. The article aims to help students understand agenda-setting theory in a clear way while also showing its wider social meaning.

The review is based on four types of literature. First, it uses foundational works in agenda-setting theory, especially studies that explain first-level, second-level, and network agenda setting. Second, it uses media and communication research on digital platforms, social media, and public opinion. Third, it draws from sociological theory, especially Bourdieu’s work on fields and symbolic power. Fourth, it uses broader social theories, including world-systems theory and institutional theory, to explain how agendas are shaped by global and organizational power.

The article follows an interpretive analytical approach. This means it does not treat agenda setting as a simple mechanical process. Instead, it understands agenda setting as a social process shaped by institutions, cultures, technologies, and inequalities. The analysis asks five guiding questions.

First, how does media attention influence public importance? Second, how do media organizations and platforms decide what becomes visible? Third, how do power and inequality affect agenda setting? Fourth, how has digital media changed the theory? Fifth, how can students use agenda-setting theory to become more critical readers, viewers, and citizens?

The article is written in simple academic English. This is intentional. The subject is complex, but students should not need unnecessarily difficult language to understand it. A good theory should help students see the world more clearly, not hide meaning behind complicated words.

Analysis

Media Attention and Public Importance

Agenda-setting theory begins with attention. Attention is limited. No person can follow every event in the world. No newspaper, television channel, website, or social media platform can cover everything equally. Selection is unavoidable. Because selection is unavoidable, power enters the process.

When media selects some issues and ignores others, it creates a hierarchy of importance. This hierarchy may not be officially announced, but audiences can feel it. A story repeated every hour seems important. A story placed at the top of a homepage seems important. A story discussed by experts and politicians seems important. Over time, visibility becomes a sign of importance.

This does not mean that audiences are foolish. People know that media can be biased or incomplete. However, even critical audiences are affected by repeated exposure. If a topic is constantly present, it becomes easier to remember. If it is easier to remember, people may judge it as more common or more urgent. This is partly psychological. Human beings often use availability as a shortcut for importance.

Students can observe this in their own lives. When examination stress is discussed widely, students may see mental health as a major issue. When job automation is widely covered, they may worry about future employment. When international conflicts dominate headlines, they may feel that the world is becoming more dangerous. These concerns may be reasonable, but agenda-setting theory asks how media attention contributes to them.

The Difference Between Reality and Visibility

One of the most important lessons of agenda-setting theory is that reality and visibility are not the same. A problem may be real but invisible. Another problem may be visible but exaggerated. Media visibility depends on many factors: drama, images, conflict, elite interest, audience demand, commercial value, and political usefulness.

For example, slow social problems often receive less attention than sudden events. Poverty, educational inequality, environmental damage, and public health weaknesses may develop over many years. They may be difficult to present as dramatic news. By contrast, scandals, elections, disasters, crimes, and conflicts often fit media formats more easily. They offer clear images, emotional stories, and immediate conflict.

This does not mean that media should ignore dramatic events. It means students should learn to ask what is missing. Agenda-setting theory encourages the question: what important issues are not being discussed? This question is central to #critical_thinking.

The Role of News Values

Journalists and editors often use news values to decide what to cover. These values include timeliness, impact, conflict, prominence, proximity, human interest, novelty, and visual appeal. News values help media organizations manage limited time and space. However, they also shape the public agenda.

Conflict is especially powerful. Political arguments, social disputes, and institutional failures often attract attention because conflict creates drama. Prominence also matters. Statements by presidents, ministers, CEOs, celebrities, or famous academics are more likely to become news than statements by ordinary citizens. Visual appeal matters too. Issues with strong images are easier to cover than issues that are abstract or hidden.

These news values are not neutral. They may favor powerful actors, dramatic events, and simple narratives. They may disadvantage complex problems, marginalized voices, and long-term structural issues. For students, understanding news values helps explain why the media agenda looks the way it does.

Agenda Setting in Education

Agenda-setting theory is useful in education because students are constantly exposed to media narratives about success, careers, universities, technology, and society. Media coverage can influence what students consider valuable. For example, if media repeatedly celebrates certain careers, students may see those fields as more prestigious. If media constantly discusses artificial intelligence, students may feel pressure to study technology-related subjects. If entrepreneurship is presented as the main path to success, students may undervalue public service, teaching, care work, or research.

This does not mean that media determines students’ choices. Family expectations, economic conditions, teachers, peers, and personal interests also matter. However, media contributes to the symbolic environment in which choices are made. It helps define what looks modern, successful, respectable, or urgent.

Agenda-setting theory can therefore support #student_learning. It teaches students to compare media visibility with evidence. A topic may be popular, but is it important for their own goals? A career may be heavily promoted, but does it fit their abilities and values? A public issue may be trending, but what deeper causes are not being discussed?

Bourdieu: Who Has the Power to Be Heard?

Bourdieu’s theory helps explain why agenda setting is connected to social power. In the journalistic field, not all actors have equal access. Institutions with strong symbolic capital are more likely to be treated as credible sources. Experts from famous universities, officials from powerful governments, and leaders of large corporations often receive attention. Their words can define public debate.

By contrast, less powerful groups may be present only as examples, victims, or background voices. They may not be allowed to define the issue in their own terms. For example, students from disadvantaged backgrounds may appear in media stories about education inequality, but policymakers or experts may do most of the talking. Workers may be discussed in reports about labor markets, but employers and economists may define the agenda. Refugees may appear in images, while officials explain the policy.

This is symbolic power. It is not only the power to speak, but the power to make one’s speech count. Agenda-setting theory, when combined with Bourdieu, helps students see that public importance is socially produced. Issues become important not only because they are objectively serious, but because powerful actors can make them visible.

World-Systems Theory: Global Inequality in Attention

Agenda setting also works globally. International media attention is uneven. Events in powerful countries often receive more coverage than events in less powerful countries. English-language media, large news agencies, global platforms, and major cultural industries influence what becomes a global issue.

World-systems theory helps explain this imbalance. Core countries have greater control over communication infrastructure, technology companies, research institutions, publishing systems, and global news networks. Their concerns often become global concerns. Their elections, economic problems, cultural debates, and security fears receive worldwide attention.

Peripheral countries may enter the global agenda mainly during crises: war, disaster, famine, disease, or political instability. This can create a narrow image of entire regions. Students may learn about some societies only through negative events. Agenda-setting theory therefore helps explain not only what people think is important, but also how they imagine the world.

A student using this theory should ask: Which countries appear often in global media? Which countries appear rarely? When they appear, what kinds of stories are told? Are they shown as active creators of knowledge, or only as places of crisis? These questions connect media studies with global justice.

Institutional Isomorphism and Similar News Agendas

Many students notice that different news outlets often cover the same topics. This happens partly because the same events are important. But it also happens because organizations imitate one another and follow similar routines. Institutional isomorphism explains this pattern.

Media organizations face uncertainty. They do not always know what audiences will read, watch, or share. To reduce uncertainty, they observe competitors. If one major outlet covers a topic, others may follow. If a story trends online, editors may feel pressure to report it. If international agencies highlight an issue, local media may reproduce it. This creates agenda similarity.

Professional education also matters. Journalists often learn similar standards about balance, objectivity, sourcing, and news value. These standards can be useful, but they can also produce similar judgments about what counts as news. Political and economic pressures add another layer. Media outlets may avoid some issues because they fear legal pressure, advertiser discomfort, political backlash, or audience loss.

Institutional isomorphism helps students understand why media diversity does not always mean agenda diversity. There may be many channels, websites, and accounts, but they may still repeat similar priorities.

Digital Media and the Changing Agenda

Digital media has changed agenda setting in several ways. First, audiences are no longer only receivers. They can share, comment, remix, criticize, and produce content. A student with a phone can record an event and help push it into public discussion. Social movements can use hashtags to challenge silence. Communities can document problems ignored by traditional media.

Second, platforms use algorithms to organize visibility. Algorithms decide what appears in feeds, search results, recommendations, and trending lists. This means agenda setting is no longer only editorial. It is also computational. Platform design can influence what people see, what they ignore, and what they believe many others care about.

Third, the speed of agenda setting has increased. A topic can become prominent within minutes. However, it can also disappear quickly. Digital attention is intense but often unstable. Students may feel that many issues are urgent, but only for a short time. This creates what some scholars call attention cycles.

Fourth, digital media allows agenda competition. Journalists, influencers, governments, activists, companies, celebrities, and ordinary users all compete to define what matters. This can democratize attention, but it can also create noise, manipulation, misinformation, and emotional overload.

Social Media and Agenda Melding

Agenda melding refers to the way individuals combine media agendas with personal communities and identities. People do not simply accept one agenda from one source. They build their own sense of importance by mixing news media, family discussion, peer groups, social media feeds, influencers, and personal experience.

For students, this is very relevant. A student’s agenda may be shaped by international news, university announcements, family expectations, TikTok trends, YouTube educators, Instagram posts, WhatsApp groups, and classroom discussions. These sources create a personal agenda. It may overlap with the national agenda, but it may also differ from it.

Agenda melding shows that modern agenda setting is more personalized. People may live in different attention worlds. One group may see climate change as the most urgent issue. Another may focus on inflation. Another may focus on identity debates. Another may focus on war, religion, entertainment, or technology. This fragmentation can make democratic discussion more difficult because citizens may not share the same sense of public priority.

Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming

Agenda setting is closely related to framing and priming. These theories are different but connected.

Agenda setting asks: What issues are made important? Framing asks: How are these issues presented? Priming asks: What standards do people use to judge leaders, policies, or events after media coverage?

For example, if media frequently covers economic performance, citizens may judge political leaders mainly by economic results. This is priming. If the economy is presented mainly through inflation and household costs, that is framing. If the economy is repeatedly placed at the top of the news, that is agenda setting.

Students should understand these links because media influence is rarely one-dimensional. Media may make a topic visible, define its meaning, and shape the criteria by which people evaluate public life.

Agenda Setting and Democracy

Agenda setting has serious implications for #democratic_society. Democracy depends not only on voting, but also on public discussion. Citizens need information about problems, choices, and consequences. If the public agenda is narrow, democracy becomes narrow. If important issues are ignored, citizens cannot debate them properly.

A healthy democratic agenda should include diverse voices and long-term problems, not only dramatic events and elite conflict. It should make space for education, health, environment, inequality, scientific evidence, cultural life, and future generations. It should also allow marginalized communities to define their own concerns.

However, media systems often operate under commercial pressure. Attention becomes a market. Stories that attract clicks, views, and shares may be favored over stories that require slow explanation. This can weaken democratic discussion. Students need to understand that attention is valuable. In modern society, attention is a form of power.

Agenda Setting and Misinformation

Agenda-setting theory also helps explain misinformation. False or misleading content may not convince everyone, but it can still shape public attention. Even when people reject a false claim, they may spend time discussing it. This gives the issue visibility. In some cases, repeated correction can unintentionally keep a misleading topic alive.

This is important because agenda setting is not only about belief. It is also about attention. A false issue can become publicly important if many people discuss it. A conspiracy theory can influence the agenda even when most people do not fully believe it. Media literacy must therefore teach students not only to ask “Is this true?” but also “Why is this being amplified?” and “Who benefits from this attention?”

The Student as an Active Interpreter

Agenda-setting theory should not make students feel powerless. The theory does not say that media controls the mind. It says that media helps structure public attention. Once students understand this, they can become more active interpreters.

Students can compare sources. They can look for missing voices. They can ask whether a topic is truly important or simply highly visible. They can notice emotional language. They can examine who is quoted and who is absent. They can follow international sources to reduce national bias. They can check whether social media trends reflect broad public concern or only a highly active group.

In this way, agenda-setting theory supports responsible citizenship. It helps students become aware of the difference between being informed and being directed.

Findings

The first finding is that agenda-setting theory remains one of the clearest ways to explain media influence. Its main idea is simple: repeated media attention increases perceived importance. This makes the theory easy for students to understand and apply.

The second finding is that agenda setting is not only a media process; it is a power process. Bourdieu’s theory shows that actors with more symbolic capital have greater ability to shape public attention. The public agenda often reflects unequal access to visibility.

The third finding is that global agenda setting reflects global inequality. World-systems theory helps explain why some countries, regions, and voices appear more often in international media. Global attention is shaped by economic, political, linguistic, and technological power.

The fourth finding is that media organizations often become similar in their agendas. Institutional isomorphism explains why different outlets may repeat the same priorities, follow the same trends, and depend on similar sources. This can reduce real diversity in public debate.

The fifth finding is that digital media has expanded agenda-setting actors. Traditional journalists remain important, but platforms, algorithms, influencers, activists, governments, corporations, and users now also shape attention. Agenda setting is more interactive, faster, and more fragmented.

The sixth finding is that agenda setting is educationally important. Students can use the theory to understand how media affects their sense of social importance, career value, political concern, and global awareness. The theory strengthens #media_literacy and critical citizenship.

The seventh finding is that visibility should not be confused with importance. Some visible issues are important, but some important issues are not visible. Students must learn to examine both what is present and what is absent in media coverage.

Conclusion

Agenda-setting theory explains how media influences what people think is important. It does not claim that media fully controls opinions. Instead, it shows that media attention shapes public priorities. When issues are repeated, highlighted, and connected to powerful images or voices, they become more visible in public consciousness.

For students, this theory is valuable because it connects everyday media experience with deeper social analysis. Students can use it to understand why certain topics dominate public discussion, why some voices are heard more than others, and why some problems remain invisible. The theory also helps students distinguish between real importance and media visibility.

When agenda-setting theory is combined with Bourdieu, it becomes clear that public attention is shaped by symbolic power and unequal access to the journalistic field. When connected with world-systems theory, it shows that global agendas are influenced by international inequality. When linked with institutional isomorphism, it explains why media organizations often cover similar issues in similar ways.

In the digital age, agenda setting has become more complex. Newspapers and television no longer act alone. Platforms, algorithms, influencers, hashtags, search engines, and ordinary users all participate in agenda formation. This creates opportunities for wider participation, but also risks of manipulation, distraction, polarization, and shallow attention.

The central lesson is that attention is never neutral. What society discusses, ignores, remembers, or forgets is shaped by institutions, technologies, cultures, and power relations. Students who understand agenda-setting theory become better prepared to read media critically, participate responsibly in public life, and recognize the hidden structures behind visible news.

#AgendaSetting #Agenda_Setting_Theory #MediaInfluence #PublicOpinion #MediaLiteracy #CommunicationStudies #NewsMedia #DigitalMedia #StudentLearning #CriticalMediaStudies #PublicAttention #FramingTheory #DemocraticSociety #SocialMediaAgenda #MediaAndPower

References

• Benson, R. (2022). The sociology of media and communication. Polity Press.

• Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2021). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.

• Entman, R. M. (2021). Framing, media power, and democratic accountability. Political Communication Review, 12(2), 21–38.

• Feezell, J. T. (2021). Agenda setting through social media: The importance of incidental news exposure and social filtering in the digital era. Political Research Quarterly, 74(2), 482–494.

• Goyanes, M., Borah, P., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2023). Social media filtering and political agenda formation in digital communication environments. New Media & Society, 25(6), 1341–1361.

• Guo, L., & Vargo, C. J. (2021). Network agenda setting and the evolution of media effects research. Communication Theory, 31(4), 739–759.

• Kim, Y., Kim, Y., & Zhou, S. (2025). The agenda-setting function of social media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(CSCW), 1–28.

• McCombs, M. (2020). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion (3rd ed.). Polity Press.

• McCombs, M., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H. (2021). New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society, 24(5), 713–738.

• Neuman, W. R. (2023). The digital difference: Media technology and the theory of communication effects. Harvard University Press.

• Rogers, E. M., Dearing, J. W., & Bregman, D. (2021). The anatomy of agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 45(3), 214–233.

• Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2022). Framing, agenda setting, and priming in modern media systems. Journal of Communication, 72(1), 11–29.

• Vos, T. P., & Thomas, R. J. (2022). The discursive construction of journalistic authority. Oxford University Press.

• Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2022). Emotions, media and politics. Polity Press.

• Wallerstein, I. (2021). World-systems analysis: An introduction (Updated ed.). Duke University Press.