The Chapel Hill study
In 1963 political scientist Bernard Cohen wrote 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." During the 1968 presidential race, McCombs and Shaw found that the issues undecided voters in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, ranked as most important closely matched how much coverage those issues got.
Later developments
The theory expanded from which issues get covered (first level) to which attributes get emphasized (second level), overlapping with the framing effect. Priming—heavily covered issues becoming yardsticks for judging leaders—and gatekeeping are related. Today, online buzz can drive newsroom priorities (reverse agenda setting), and algorithms personalize agendas. See also cultivation theory and the spiral of silence.
FAQ
- Does it mean media manipulate opinion?
- Not necessarily on purpose—coverage choices shape what seems important, which carries responsibility.
- How is it different from framing?
- Agenda setting is about what's salient; framing is about how it's interpreted. They overlap at the second level.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
- Cohen, B. C. (1963). The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton University Press.
- McCombs, M. (2014). Setting the Agenda (2nd ed.). Polity.