Agenda-Setting Theory: Definition, History, and Examples

Agenda-setting theory holds that the mass media influence which issues the public considers important. The more often and more prominently an issue is covered, the more likely the public is to see it as important. The media do not always determine what people think, but they strongly shape what people think about.

The theory is more than half a century old, yet its relevance for communication teams is growing. An issue picked up by many outlets at once can become a concern for leaders, policymakers, and the public within days.

Origins of agenda-setting theory

The core idea is often traced to Bernard Cohen's (1963) observation that 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.

Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw later tested the idea in their Chapel Hill, North Carolina study during the 1968 United States presidential election. They compared the issues most covered by the media with the issues undecided voters considered most important, and found a strong match. The findings were published in Public Opinion Quarterly in 1972 as The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.

Three levels of agenda setting

Later research extended the theory to three levels.

The second level is very close to news framing. For example, the media do not only make the public see toll road construction as important, they also highlight its attributes: tariffs, holiday congestion, or regional economic impact.

Related terms

• Media agenda: the issues most covered and most prominent in the news over a given period.
• Public agenda: the issues the public considers important, usually measured through surveys.
• Policy agenda: the issues taken up by policymakers, such as government or parliament.
• Agenda building: how the media agenda itself is formed, including the influence of sources, press releases, and events.
• Intermedia agenda setting: the influence of one outlet on others, for example an issue raised by national media and then picked up by regional media.

Agenda setting in the news: an example

Agenda-setting patterns are easy to see in seasonal issues. Before a long holiday, coverage of traffic flows, toll tariffs, and route readiness rises sharply. The public talks about the same things, and the relevant agencies are expected to explain.

Qola's monitoring data shows a similar pattern. In the toll road news analysis for October 2026, 4,287 stories from 1,138 outlets in one month covered a single topic from many angles. When many outlets take up the same issue at around the same time, it tends to become a concern for the public and the agencies involved, as agenda-setting theory predicts.

Criticism and limits of the theory

The theory has limits worth understanding so it is not over-applied.

• The effect is not the same for everyone. People with direct experience of an issue, such as residents who drive on a damaged road every day, rely less on the media to judge how important it is.
• Influence can run the other way. Sometimes the media take up an issue because the public was already discussing it.
• The media landscape is more diverse. With many information sources, there is no single media agenda. Yet mainstream news is still widely cited and republished.

Why agenda setting matters for communication teams

For communication teams, the theory explains why media monitoring is more than counting stories. Issues that consistently appear on the media agenda tend to enter the public and policy agendas. Some implications:

• Read the media agenda early. An issue rising in a few outlets often becomes a major issue the following week. This pattern underpins crisis communication early warning.
• Measure the organisation's place in the agenda. How often the organisation appears compared with peers on the same issue can be measured with share of voice.
• Help build the agenda. Through agenda building, press releases, data, and credible spokespeople can help shape which issues and attributes are covered.
• Track the flow from national to regional media. Knowing which outlet first raised an issue helps the team decide where to send a clarification first.

Qola monitors national and regional online news and expert statements, groups them into issues, and shows day-to-day mention trends. Communication teams can see the media agenda as it forms and where their organisation sits within it. See Qola's features or solutions for enterprises.

Cover photo: Clint Patterson via Unsplash. The photo is an illustration, not documentation of a Qola customer.

FAQ about agenda-setting theory

Who developed agenda-setting theory?

Agenda-setting theory was formulated by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw through their Chapel Hill study of the 1968 United States presidential election, published in Public Opinion Quarterly in 1972.

What is the core idea of agenda-setting theory?

The media influence which issues the public considers important. Issues covered often and prominently tend to be seen as more important, even if the media do not always determine what people think about them.

What is the difference between agenda setting and framing?

Agenda setting is about which issues are considered important. Framing is about how those issues are understood. The salience of issue attributes in second-level agenda setting is often equated with framing.

Is agenda-setting theory still relevant?

Yes. Information sources are more varied today, but mainstream news is still widely republished and referenced by policymakers. Issues raised by national media and then picked up by regional media are still easy to find in news data.