Exploring how the media use agenda setting to influence and manipulate the opinions of their

passive audience.

Mainstream media set agendas to psychologically influence and brainwash their

passive audience. I believe many news outlets misinform their audience with consistently

biased headlines and leave out key information out of their articles. Their headlines often

aren't a true reflection of the events in the article, rather a more controversially worded

headline in order to push a certain viewpoint and mislead their audience. Newspapers such as

the Daily Mail are one of many newspapers that spread fear and Islamophobia.

This Daily Mail article posted on Facebook is headlined "Huge 'potentially hazardous'

asteroid will skim past Earth TOMORROW" claiming an asteroid will 'skim' past Earth.

However, once you read the article you will find out that the asteroid will, in fact, be 6.4

million miles away from Earth at its closest (Daily Mail, 2017).

Firstly, I looked into the publication bias theory which is an idea that studies and

results with positive outcomes and findings are far more likely to be published.  Articles that

show positive results to previously unknown effects or causes are most likely to grab people's

attention. It only takes one positive result for an article to surface which will often disregard

all the previous studies that disprove that particular outcome. The British Medical Journal

published a study which found that 54% of reviews/articles had missing studies and in ¼ of

them those missing studies would significantly alter the findings or even disprove the

findings completely (Strange Mysteries, 2016). Vegetarians often claim that red meat causes

cancer and having recently debated a vegetarian, I experienced this first hand. They firmly

believe that red meat causes cancer and doesn't digest. The Daily Mail published an article in

2015 with the headline: 'Bacon, burgers and sausages are a cancer risk, say world health

chiefs: Processed meats added to list of substances most likely to cause disease alongside

cigarettes and asbestos' (Daily Mail, 2015). This is one of many misleading articles out there

spreading these myths as facts. The original study that birthed all these articles showed some

correlation between eating red meat and getting bowel cancer. However, there are many

problems with the conclusion that came from this study. Firstly, as we all know correlation

does not mean causation. Secondly, this study was funded by a vegetarian food company. I

am not saying the study was rigged and manipulated to produce a certain result however a

vegetarian food company would benefit largely from such outcome. Thirdly, there have been

numerous studies disproving any strong direct link between having large amounts of red meat

in your diet and the chances of developing bowel cancer. However, due to agenda setting, all

these negatives results were completely disregarded in the articles and the privately funded

study that showed a positive result was included and written about as if it was the only

possible outcome. The term used to describe this is 'swept under the rug'. The term describes

the process of withholding negative results from publication and the possibility that study

sponsors may provide incentives in a deliberate attempt to skew findings. A passive audience

would read that article and instantly treat the information as fact without questioning it. This

would influence their perception of red meat. This opinion would remain as a fact in their

minds and it would be very unlikely that future articles they read would change their mind

even if they provide sufficient evidence contradicting their opinion. This is due to the

anchoring bias.

The anchoring bias theory is an idea that people rely heavily on the first information

they read about a topic regardless of the information presented to them after. "People make

estimates by starting from an initial value that is adjusted to yield the final answer,"

explained Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in a 1974 paper. "The initial value, or

starting point, may be suggested by the formulation of the problem, or it may be the result of

a partial computation. In either case, adjustments are typically insufficient. That is, different

starting points yield different estimates, which are biased toward the initial values."

(Verywell, 2017). This theory can also be applied to agenda setting. If a newspaper publishes

an article misinforming their passive audience, the audience will stick to the information they

read and will view opposing viewpoints as invalid. That's exactly why ignorant people with

outdated mind-sets struggle to accept other people's differing opinions and values.

The hypodermic needle theory otherwise known as the magic bullet theory was the

first theory invented that described the process through which media influence and brainwash

their passive audience. It was first invented by media scholars in the mid-1930s. Media

played a pivotal part in controlling and manipulating the populations of both Nazi Germany

and the United States of America. Propaganda was often created in order to gain support for

the Nazi Party and infect the German public with Hitler's ideologies. They used anti-Semitic

and anti-communist propaganda along with other political ideas such as posters depicting the

perfect German family. Hitler and his henchmen also ordered the making of Nazi films

showcasing the benefits and achievements of Nazi Germany and their way of life. Similarly,

Hollywood produced films such as “Its happened one night”, “It’s a wonderful life” and "Mr

Smith goes to Washington” to establish Germany as an evil force by directly injecting the

public with this idea. The hypodermic needle theory suggests that audiences accept these

ideas without any rejection or second thought. The media would inject different messages

directly into an audience to cause change in their behaviour, attitude and opinions. The

hypodermic needle theory relies on an assumption that all audiences are passive and wouldn't

question the messages presented to them. For example, in the 1930s newly formed Mercury

theatre and Orson Wells joined forces to create fake news about an alien invasion in Grover's

Mill, New Jersey. It reached 12 million Americans and 1 million of those seriously believed

this news and the whole country went into chaos. Several scholars from that time were not

accepting of this theory because it is based on assumption of human behaviour rather than

numerical data from a study. In the 1940s, Lazarsfeld conducted a study called the "People's

Choice" which disproved the hypodermic needle theory and found that audiences may not be

affected directly by messages found in mainstream media. Lazarsfeld believed in the two-step

flow theory instead.

The two-step flow theory suggests there is a middleman between the media and its

audience as opposed to the media being a direct influence on the audience like the magic

bullet theory suggests. These middlemen are called opinion leaders and are often famous

people who have a reputation and social authority. They refine and digest what the media say

and inform their own audience about it. Since their audience deems them as more

trustworthy, they are able to influence their audience and their opinions and values. This

theory was first introduced in 1944 after a study was conducted by Lazarsfeld, Berelson and

Gaudet. The study found that information often moves in two distinct stages. Firstly, the

opinion leaders who pay close attention and follow mainstream media will receive the

messages and interpret them. They will then pass their interpretations along with the original

message to their audience. This process of intervening between the original direct message

sent by the mainstream media and the audience's ultimate reaction to that message is called

'personal influence'. Opinion leaders are very influential people who can easily influence and

manipulate the masses.

News outlets decide what stories get shown and publicised and how the headlines are

worded in order to push a certain agenda and influence their audience. Mainstream media can

take things that happened, move them around and make it seem like something it isn’t. They

don’t show you everything and don't usually cover both sides of the story. They only show

you what they want you to see in order to push their agenda. For example, when America

dropped atomic bombs on Japan, the US media never covered the full horrific extent of the

damage caused to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the colossal number of casualties. Certain

stories are often left unreported or placed at the end of the newspaper if they show a minority

in a good light or go against their agenda. For example, the Daily Mail reported both the Las

Vegas and Westminster terrorist attacks. However, the person behind the Westminster attack

was labelled a terrorist due to his Middle Eastern ancestry whereas the person behind the Las

Vegas attack was labelled a gunman even though they both used violence to spread terror.

This was clearly done to influence their passive audience and spread the stereotypical belief

that Muslims are terrorists. The media also distract us from what they don’t want us to see.

"Media manipulation currently shapes everything you read, hear and watch online.

Everything" (Forbes, 2012). The majority of people know and acknowledge the influence

mass media has on public perception however they are unaware of the incredible degree to

which this occurs. When consuming modern mainstream media we can never escape

exaggeration, distortion, fabrication and simplification. This is due to issues such as dishonest

sources, page view quotas, greedy publishers and much more. Michael Arrington, former

editor and founder of the popular blog TechChurch, once said "Getting it right is expensive,

getting it first is cheap" (Forbes, 2012). The media don't care if they are misinforming their

audiences. Brian Moylan once said, "The key is to get the whole story into the headline but

leave out just enough that people will want to click" (Forbes, 2012). In modern times, the

mainstream media manipulate and exploit the difference between perception and reality.

Mainstream media was once a trusted source of information for the public. While this is no

longer the case, this old perception remains.

In conclusion, whether you believe in the hypodermic needle theory or the two-step

flow theory, it's pivotal that you take what you read and hear from the mainstream media with

a pinch of salt. Due to theories like the publication bias, the likelihood that you'll receive

100% factual information that fairly presents you the full story with no biased input is

practically non-existent. I believe it is vital to be an active member of the audience rather

than a passive one.