There is a debate over whether framing theory should be subsumed within agenda-setting as "second-level agenda-setting." McCombs, Shaw, Weaver and colleagues generally argue that framing is a part of agenda-setting that operates as a "second-level" or secondary effect. The second level agenda setting differs from traditional agenda setting in that it focus on attribute salience, and public’s attribute agenda is regarded as one of the important variables.
Furthermore, Ghanem(1997) demonstrated that the certain attributes agendas in the news with low psychological distance, drove compelling arguments for the salience of public agenda. The second level of agenda-setting considers how the agenda of attributes affects public opinion (McCombs & Evatt, 1995).
Balmas and Sheafer (2010) argued that the focus at the first level agenda-setting which emphasizes media’s role in telling us "what to think about" is shifted to media’s function of telling us "how to think about" at the second level agenda-setting. (1998) demonstrated that agenda-setting research at the second level deals with the influence of ‘attribute’ salience, whereas the first level agenda-setting illustrates the influence of ‘issue’ salience. According to Fairhurst & Sarr (1996) framing consists of three elements: language, thought and forethought.”(Fairhurst& Sarr, 1996) It is a skill that most successful leaders possess, yet one that is not often taught. It is a skill with profound effects on how organizational members understand and respond to the world in which they live. Each of the objects on an agenda has a lot of attributes containing cognitive component such as information that describes characteristics of the object, and an affective component including tones(positive, negative, neutral) of the characteristics on agenda.“Framing is a quality of communication that leads others to accept one meaning over another. As agenda setting theory has been developed, scholars pointed out attributes that describe the object.
0 kommentar(er)
