To set the agenda...

To some, it may be upsetting to think that the media are completely incapable of presenting a truly objective reality, that they in fact are agenda-setters. In my opinion, this is not necessarily a problem. As McComb states in his agenda-setting theory, the media "focus our attention and influence our perceptions of what are the most important issues of the day." It's impossible for the people, for the viewers/readers/listeners to take in our entire objective reality. So the media truly do act as gatekeepers, fishing out the most important issues and events from our objective reality, and then presenting them subjectively, but as accurately as possible. The media cannot report on everything that happens, nor can they do so without subjectivity. Instead, I believe it is our duty to seek and report as much truth as possible about our objective reality. As long as journalists do their best to report the truth, and report those truths that are indeed most important for the people to know, there isn't an issue with agenda-setting.

Which leads me to your question at the end of class today. In picking those three, back page stories and reprinting them as front page stories of great U.S. importance, technically, you didn't do anything wrong. You did report the truth. However, the way in which you reported truth was a problem. You took those stories out of context, because in the grand scheme of things, there were other happenings in the U.S. that in fact warranted more attention over those stories. There were other stories that would have been deemed more important by a larger number of people that should have been given precedent. And that is our responsibility as gatekeepers, to filter this objective reality and present the most pressing, important and interesting issues. Clearly, in picking those three stories, you did not.