Introduction

The subject of my research is the agenda that is set for international students. Because the native languages of this group of people are different from English, they do not seem to be very well informed about American issues.

On the other hand, both the persuasive style of American media and the American lifestyle seem to be sufficient reasons to prefer American media to international students’ domestic media.

International students who live on campus are also supposed to be aware of campus issues because they are a part of that community.
It is a very intriguing question: “Which media sets the agenda for international students: international, national or local?”

Another research question that has yet to be answered is, “Which kind of media is the most trustworthy and most powerful in setting this agenda?” While newspapers and TV are the most popular media in the USA, radio still keeps the leading position as the most popular media in other countries (especially in those with low level of literacy).

Moreover, the people from countries with collectivistic culture, like Japan and China, tend to trust opinion leaders even more than Americans do (Griffin, 2003).

The origins of agenda-setting theory

The agenda-setting theory has come a long way. Presented more than 30 years ago in the marketplace of ideas (since the publication of McCombs and Shaw’s (1972) research devoted to the 1968 presidential election - although some authors refer its origin to Walter Lippmann’s description of the formation of the “pictures in our heads” (Benton & Jean Frazier 1976, 261)), agenda-setting theory made a 180-degree turn in its main hypothesis.

The original Bernard Cohen’s coinage that media “…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to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” (McCombs & Shaw 1972, 177) has been replaced by “media not only tell us what to think about, but also how to think about it, and, consequently, what to think.” (McCombs & Shaw 1993, 65)

In the review, devoted to the 25th anniversary of agenda-setting, McCombs and Shaw counted more than 200 articles concerning agenda-setting (McCombs & Shaw 1993, 59). In 2002 McCombs corrected this number, counting “300 published studies worldwide have documented this influence of the news media.” (McCombs 2002, 3)

Most articles fall into two main subcategories within agenda-setting field: the media agenda and public agenda and their relationships (original hypothesis) and framing hypothesis, that suggests that media organizes our news and influence the way we think (Scheufele 1999).

Public agenda vs. Media agenda

The original hypothesis was established by McCombs and Shaw’s “The agenda-setting function of mass-media” (1972) and was followed by other research (Weaver et al. 1975, Benton & Jean Frazier 1976, Beniger 1978).
In early articles it was argued, “…the media set the agenda for public opinion, without necessarily determining the direction that opinion will take” (Weaver et al. 1975, 459). This has been labeled “agenda-setting function of mass-media.” (McCombs & Shaw 1972, 184)

Originally the agenda-setting theory tried to determine the relationship between media agenda and public agenda – especially, what causes what (Weaver et al. 1975). Other scholars studied this relationship, analyzing how strong media content correlates with the public agenda. One of the attempts based on the Greenfield Index (measure of faddish trends in media attention to social trends) (Beniger 1978, 443). This and another research (McCombs & Shaw 1993) showed that media did not reflect public priorities so much as they determine them.

It was found that a time lag between news and reality exists and sometimes “media coverage actually peaked before objective trends” (Beniger 1978, 446). This time lag varies depending whether it happens on a local, national, or international level (Palmgreen & Clarke, 1977).

It was argued that there is “higher average levels of individual exposure about national [rather than local] issues” (Palmgreen & Clarke 1977, 438). This interest was dictated by abstract consideration for the welfare of the nation as a whole (Palmgreen & Clarke 1977, 436).

The roots of agenda-setting: need for orientation

Some scholars see the origins of media agenda in personal need for orientation (McCombs 2002). McCombs writes that this need for orientation is defined by two components: relevance and uncertainty. “Relevance is the initial defining condition that determines the level of need for orientation for each individual… For individuals among whom the relevance of topic is high, their degree of uncertainty about the topic determines the level of need for orientation” (McCombs 2002, 9).

Weaver et al. (1975) found out that individuals’ need for orientation about political matters is positively related to his or her use of mass media for political information.

The agenda is set on three “levels”: awareness of general issues, awareness of proposed solutions and specific knowledge about proposals (Benton & Jean Frazier 1976). Later this theory was developed into the priming theory (Scheufele 2000)

Different media – different agendas

Another important finding concerning agenda-setting is that different media set the agenda in different ways. For instance, it was argued that newspapers have the greater superiority than TV in both (local and national) levels in setting the agenda (Palmgreen & Clarke 1977). Another research showed that TV is able to predict opinions but newspapers can predict actual behavior (Brosius & Wiemann 1996).

Intermedia agenda setting (e.g. agenda set by different media) has a “multiplication” effect. Media covers a single event over and over again and can set the agenda for another media (Breen 1997).

The Internet provides the opportunity to set the personal agenda. New media are less “persuasive” than traditional media and people who read them tend to have different personal agendas (unlike those who are reading “hard-copy” newspapers) (Althaus & Tewksbury 2002).

Communication scholars take into account the level of personal exposure to an agenda. Some suggest that researchers should collect personal “salience information” described as “the perception of a causal linkage between certain aspects of a problem and individual’s own life space” (Benton & Jean Frazier 1976, 262).

Other media effects

An agenda varies on its influence. As long as it is a memory-based phenomenon (McCombs 2002), it strongly depends on the individual. For example, some researchers studied the differences in defining the issues among three education groups and it was suggested that more educated people pay more attention to current issues rather than the less educated (Gaziano 1985).

Other media effects that differ from agenda-setting include priming and framing. Those three approaches to the effects of communications are very similar but have different origins.

Basically, framing is “…the selection of restricted number of thematically related attributes for inclusion on the media agenda when a particular object is discussed” (Scheufele 2000, 297). It’s the extension of agenda-setting; however, that is sometimes viewed as a separate phenomenon.
The difference between agenda-setting and framing is that framing is the way an object on the agenda is presented and can have measurable behavioral consequences. Gitlin argued that attributes of an issue emphasized in the news coverage could directly influence the direction of public opinion (McCombs & Shaw, 1993, 63)

Scheufele suggests that framing has two dimensions: media versus individual frames. The former “…organizes everyday reality and the news frame is part and parcel of everyday reality” (Scheufele 1999, 106), whereas individual frames are defined as “…mentally stored clusters of ideas that guide individuals’ processing of information” (Scheufele 1999, 107).

Framing is a recent, quickly developing conception within agenda-setting theory. Frames are studied as both dependent (role of different factors in influencing the creation or modification of frames) and independent (the effects of framing) variables. (Scheufele 1999).
The danger of framing is that it is calling the attention to some matters while ignoring others; deviant stories about individuals are used to cast in negative light on a whole groups by association (Breen 1997).

Priming refers to the stimulation or activation of knowledge stored in memory (Althaus & Kim 2002). According to McCombs & Shaw (1993), “…in the course of priming a particular criterion (or set of criteria) the news media promote social consensus… about the criteria used in reaching that judgment [about official’s doing bad or good]” (McCombs & Shaw 1993, 64). So the media, providing an agenda that everyone can share, create a sense of community.

Scholars argue that priming and agenda-setting are based on premises that differ from those of framing (Scheufele 2000). Priming and agenda-setting, suggest they can be traced back to accessibility or a memory-based model of information processing: in any given time some pieces of information are more accessible than others.

The gatekeepers

The question: “Who sets the media agenda?” caused a lot of studies about gatekeepers, or guardians. The operation chiefs of the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC and CBS are considered national gatekeepers (Griffin, 2003). The news stories aren’t treated equally: some are cut, some are used at length – gatekeepers, mostly being upper-class Caucasian males, don’t represent a cross-section of U.S. citizen.

Weimann & Brosius describe the process of setting the agenda as a two-step flow: first, the media disseminate the information; second, some people (opinion leaders) “…through social discourse, personal contacts and social networks… collect, diffuse, filter and promote the flow of information” (Wiemann & Brosius 1996, 576). It was also pointed out that such opinion leaders set the agenda more effectively than newspapers (Gaziano 1985).

Purpose of a study

The literature on media effects hasn’t studied which media and how set the agenda for international students. This research is to analyze the differences in the process of setting the agenda and its consequences.

Method

Two interviews with international students were conducted. Both students were females from Ukraine, 24 and 25 years comparatively.
The main criterion of choice was the basis of comparison: both students came from the same culture and have a similar background; both students have full access to American media.

The interviewees were the graduate students from the Department of Journalism. On one hand, this could weaken some of our hypotheses (because of interviewee’s professional interest), but on the other hand the interviewees were more interested in news. For my research, I did need people who devote a lot of time to media. That’s why I chose journalism students.

The journalism students tend to be more aware of the news; thus, they can provide the researcher with interesting analysis of issues and media coverage style. The research plan included not only studying their agenda, but also examining their perception of the media and their feelings, which emerged out of media.

The questionnaire has been made to examine interviewees on four dimensions: media agenda, need for orientation, preferable kind of news and shaping the opinions.

More precisely, interviews were focused on:
-The preferences in news (local, national, international)
-American media vs. international media: reasons to choose one
-The reasons to be aware about the current issues
-The preferences of type of media
-Both interviews were coded and some categories emerged. The category was listed only if interviewees repeated specific terms some times (see the questionnaire in Appendix).

The total number of categories, mentioned by interviewees, was 64.

Hypotheses for the research

Herewith I will try to formulate possible research hypotheses:
The amount of attention international students pay to American media is increasing during their stay in the USA.

Obviously, this hypothesis concerns mostly online news (newspapers and TV from their home country are hard to access in the USA). However, respondents are able to read news on the Internet and listen to national radio through the Internet.

International students have a different balance of importance with local and national issues.

As it was told, international students strongly rely on their community. Another factor is that most newcomers belong to collectivistic cultures. Therefore, those people tend to establish relations rather than to be independent from society. That’s why local issues are supposed to be more important for them rather than national issues.

Unlike of that, the salience of national news for Americans is dictated by trouble about the welfare of the nation as a whole (Palmgreen & Clarke 1977, 436). The international students are getting more interested in news as a whole while in the USA.

There are some reasons to propose this hypothesis: first of all, it’s the high professional level of the American media in news coverage. I believe, American media is the most professional media in the world.

The second reason is that international students tend to be more interested in news because their need for orientation is higher than that of Americans. Being well educated, they tend to read the news often and thoroughly. Jacques Ellul, the French philosopher, argued that the more you are informed, the more need for orientation you feel (Ellul, 1965, 51).

Interviewees were the graduate students from Ukraine. The first interviewee spent less than half of the year in the USA; the second spent about fifteen months in the country.

The first hypothesis was measured by these questions: Which media do you prefer and why? Which media did you prefer back home? What media do you believe the most and why? Could you describe the distinctions between your national and American media?

The answers to these questions provided us with a better understanding what media is like in countries like Ukraine; what is their role in setting the agenda and how do people divide their attention between different kinds of media. It seems that a weak point about this hypothesis is asking subjects to describe past events; but in fact asking 2nd-year student about it we can compare his answers with the answers of 1st –year student and make sure if media have the “hindsight” effect.

The second hypothesis is verified with following questions: Please describe how you divide your time among different kinds of media? Which issues are you interested in? Which media do you think covers issues in the best way and why? Is there any differences for you in the perception of American and domestic news? Which issues are you interested in the most and why? Could you list five hot issues from the last two weeks?

The statistical data about how Americans perceive local and national agenda is studied well (Palmgreen & Clarke 1977), so we have material for the comparison. In fact, the main value of this research, in my opinion, is the possibility to compare the data of research made among international students, with one from a survey conducted among Americans.

The third hypothesis is the most interesting finding in the research.
Basically, the personal need for orientation is considered the most important factor when the media is studied. To verify the hypothesis, the following questions were proposed: Why do you read the news? Do you feel uncertain about American issues? How often do you get access to the media? How often did you get it back home?

Findings

The topic of research implied that categories would be connected with media, its effects and its different characteristics. Basically, it was so: the research emphasized the importance of media in the life of newcomers and made clearer which effects help newcomers to adjust to American culture, to be more aware of current issues, and to shape their opinions.

Four main topics concerned in interviews were:
-Media (its effects, kinds of media, media levels, attractiveness, comparisons)
- News (by topic: cultural, economical, political; level of news – local, national, international)
-Need for Orientation (its roots, how it affects foreign students)
-Agenda (Current issues that interviewees are aware of)

Types of media

Foreign students are more likely watch TV and read the news on the Web than any other media. There are a lot of reasons for that, like lack of time, convenience of representation of the news and flexibility of choice the news (Internet).

Interviewer: So, you said TV is better in coverage the issues than Internet or newspapers?
Nata: Well you know – people here are always in a hurry, they don’t really have much time; when you at home, you can cook, you can do whatever you want and watch or listen to the TV.

Although, TV news are not perceived deeply; rather, it’s just acquaintance with the news. The categories that was listed for TV included “easy understanding”, “good background”, “slight analysis”, “easy access”.
I found out that 2nd-year grad student is not so interested in TV news, as 1st year. More precisely, the former still watches TV, but mostly for entertainment.

On the other hand, the news from online news are read by 2nd year student on the daily basis. She is paying more attention to the Web, because online newspapers provide broader perspective. One more reason to prefer online news is easy and quick connection to the Internet (in comparison with Ukraine).

Other types of media weren’t listed as the sources of information:
Nata: You can listen to the radio only when you’re driving or something and it’s more for relaxation, not for the news.

Attractiveness of the American media is explained by its professionalism (both interviewees noticed that) and persuasive style (the interviewees watch it on daily basis, rarely less than 3-4 hours in a day).

What concerns time that students pay to the American media, I have to admit that hypothesis was rejected. I didn’t find any connection between length of stay in the USA and amount of the attention paid to American media. Vice versa, 1st year grad student appeared more devoted TV watcher than 2nd year grad student. However, that doesn’t mean that hypothesis should be rejected at all. Following research involving larger set of interviewees must clarify this question.

News: local, national, international

To verify hypothesis about the balance between local and national news, I asked interviewees the questions what news are they interested in and why. The responses I got sounded like this:
Nata: Basically everything except sports… Well… I have preferences – I do prefer political and economical news… I am interested in those news ‘coz actually they affect the world

Maria: Nope, I never watch them [local news]… The only thing is interesting for me is weather, you know. Well, back home I have watched local news very seldom as well, but because of low professional level, yah know…

Even though Maria confessed she don’t like local news, being asked which news she prefer – national or local, she said that she was in local news much. Nata (1st year student) admitted she watches local TV because she doesn’t have cable TV:

Nata: …everything here is about local stuffs, I mean – Indiana
Both interviewees are prefer international news to local or national; the reasons to choose that were “broaden perspective”, “common topics for communication with friends worldwide”, “better analysis”, “more interesting content” and so on.

What concerns the balance between local and national news, I didn’t find any evidences to claim that international students have balance between local and national issues that differs from average American.

Need for orientation

Both interviewees admitted that they use news to be more aware of current issues:

Maria: I have a lot of friends everywhere in the world and it’s kinda important for communication, Moreover, I would like to have wider outlook.
Nata: Sometimes people ask you and you don’t know what are they talking about. Probably, to be able to talk to people whatever they ask me – that’s the main reason.

I asked both students about their experience with changing of environment. I asked them if the interest to the media changed when they came to the America.
The finding I made was really interesting. Responses I got prove the hypothesis number three:

Interviewer: How much time do you devote to media in a day?
Maria: Well… About 8 hours… I’m a news junkie…
Interviewer: Which media do you prefer – American or international? Why?
Maria: I pay attention to all media – either American or international… it’s kinda interesting – international perspective about current issues: what people think about each other

My first hypothesis was based on the assumption that American media becomes to push out the international news from the agenda. However, I found out that American news is added to the international. That causes the fact that students are spending more time reading the news (Maria admitted she tries to check the news every hour).

Conclusions

Some categories emerged from the research which complete the study.
One of them is the importance of technology. Technology as a factor of agenda-setting hasn’t been studied yet. Although after McLuhan we cannot not to take the technology into consideration.

Interviewees admitted that interest to the media that technology influenced on their interest to the media (and respectively helped to set their agenda). Among the factors they called “easy and quick connection to the Internet”, “high professionalism” (including the good equipment).

The importance of technologies in agenda-setting might be the idea for future research.
It looks like these idea supports those of philosophers of post-technical society about technology as a social process, mode of organizing and changing social relationships (Marcuse 1964), or McLuhan’s famous coinage “medium is the message” (Griffin 2003).

Another finding is the view on media as a substitute for communication: both interviewees admitted they devoted much time to media. Unfortunately, this was beyond the limits of my research, however the hypothesis that the TV could be a substitute the to the interlocutor, might be interesting.

If it is so, the future research can contribute to the media equation’s theory body of knowledge. McCombs and Shaw’s (1993) articles claimed that one of the media effects is the sharing the senses. It makes people feel belonged to the community. That could be additional proof for this hypothesis.

The verification of hypothesis showed that only one hypothesis can be verified. First two hypotheses were rejected. I didn’t find any evidences to state that students change the agenda-setter; rather, they add new media to their list.

The second hypothesis (foreign students have different balance between local and national issues) have been rejected as well. I found some evidences of this hypothesis (Maria were interested in local issues much), but they were not very powerful; that’s why I think this hypothesis need another research to be confirmed (probably, with larger set of interviewees).
The reason why people are getting more interested in the news as a whole are listed above. They are: increasing need for communication; American news adds to the existing agenda; influence of technology; media substitutes interlocutors.

I think these findings contribute to the body of knowledge of agenda-setting. In future research I would like to study the influence of new variables (technology, media as substitute for talker) on the process of agenda-setting.