Impacts of Framing on Agenda Setting

Impacts of Framing on Agenda Setting

Introduction

Policymakers face intellectual tasks that require them to use their cognitive skills in making policies relevant to their administrative units. Frames have impacts on agenda setting during the policymaking process. The effect of framing on agenda setting is contingent upon the type of the frame that policy makers utilize. The possible classifications of frames are issue-specific, and generic, strategy, value, economic and social frames. The changing perceptions and roles of the state and private sectors have greatly influenced the agenda setting process in Congress. Policymakers must to understand how each class of frame affects agenda setting to avoid societal conflicts.

Agenda Setting

Agenda setting refers to the process through which administrators prioritize and find consensus in dealing with public issues. An agenda is a set of issues that is hierarchically arranged acoording to the level of priorities. Agendas change dynamically with time because issues are solved or have stopped being urgent due to rising of other urgent matters (Gruszczynski & Michaels 360). The three crucial subsystems of agenda setting include the media, public and policy. The process of agenda setting is contingent upon a cognitive process referred to as accessibility. This implies that an issue will become accessible in people’s memories if it is covered frequently and prominently in the media.

Framing

Framing refers to theoretical perspectives and set of principles that focus on how people organize, communicate, and perceive reality (Meriläinen & Vos 121). It deals with selecting certain aspects of an issue to bring to people’s attention and lead them to a line of interpretation. Framing is made up of three fundamental components; these are the definition of the problem, moral evaluation, treatment recommendation and casual interpretation. Framing is believed to create desirable conditions for the agenda setting process. Psychologists apply the theory of cognitive dissonance when explaining the relationship between framing and agenda setting. According to this theory, people who are exposed to frames that do not comply with their cognitive elements lead to cognitive dissonance.

Types of Frames and their Impacts on Agenda Setting

Issue-Specific Frames

Issue-specific frames focus on specified topics and events, for example, the United States’ minimum drinking age policy focused on reducing the adversities associated with minor consumption (de Vreese 54). Enactment of policies to specify the minimum age requirements for possessing firearms were intended to decrease the access of minors to the tools. Issue-specific frames are considered more urgent than generic. Issue-specific frames focus on the framed issue that invokes the cognitive dissonance of policy makers. Public administrators prioritize issue-specific frames to generic ones when making urgent decisions.

Generic Frames

Generic frames are more general than issue-specific because they are not pertinent to specific topics or events. Additionally, generic frames do not experience thematic limitations; they can be identified in a variety of topics, periods and cultural contexts (de Vreese 54). The types of generic frames include human interests, responsibility, consequences, conflict and morality. Generic focus on different issues from issue-specific. Generic frames lose urgency because they can be applied to other issues in different periods; this is possible because of their generic character.

Strategy Frames

Strategy frames organize policy conflicts as clashes of political interest and competitive strategies. These frames typically highlight political schemes of the competing parties, which relate to their tactics, strategies and objectives (Lee, McLeod & Shah 700). Politicians and people seeking popularity are believed to depend on strategy frames to achieve their objectives. Strategy frames do not meet urgent needs because they are meant for long-term benefits. Strategy frames are not critical to the public; this disillusion dilutes the degree of cognitive dissonance and leads to a reduction in the weight of cognitive elements. Strategic framing, therefore, leads to postponing or abandoning of agendas.

Value Frames

Value frames depict policy clashes as fundamental values. The conflicting parties differ on the bases of different sets of values. Value frames are more powerful and efficient in influencing the audience to agenda setting than strategy outlines. This is because values are crucial in providing policymakers with accessible heuristics, which enable them to comprehend the complexity of policy issues without seeking detailed information (Lee, McLeod & Shah 701). Value frames, therefore, are substantially effective when setting agendas since they emphasize moral principles and values.

Economic Framing

Economic framing deals with the effects of policies on the economy of a country. Public administrators discard agendas that are predicted to have undesirable economic consequences, for example, the United States immigration policy has occupied the headlines of political debate for decades (Gruszczynski & Michaels 371). The policymakers weigh the need to maintain global competitiveness by attracting a pool of labor from all countries of the world against curbing illegal immigration to secure the United States borders. The change in the immigration policy has undesirable economic consequences for Americans will start concentrating on manual work that is done by immigrants. This will limit the time available for professionals to concentrate on scientific innovations and business activities, hence greatly hurting the economic growth of the United States.

Social Framing

Social framing is concerned with the acceptability of the policy and correspondence to norms, beliefs and attitudes of the society. Policymakers discard or amend agendas that do not rhyme with the society’s norms (Merilainen & Vos 128). Public administrators do not vote for policies because of economic gains alone; however, they also consider other social ramifications associated with the agendas. An example is the current debate concerning gay rights that has led to conflicting viewpoints between the public and policymakers. Presently, nine states and the District of Columbia have voted for gay marriage bills (Reid 31). Other states are still considering the social effects of this trend before voting for same-sex marriage bills. Social frames cannot be ignored in agenda setting since they determine the acceptability of the policies.

Effects of Changing Roles of the Public and Private Sectors on Agenda Setting in Congress

The changing perceptions and roles of the public and private sectors have changed the process of agenda setting in Congress. The United States system of the government is accessible to citizens and open to public opinions (Reid 22). The environment of policymaking and the institutions involved have evolved over time. This has led to the government encouraging participatory agenda setting for a range of participants that influence this process. Special interest groups and nongovernmental organizations share a common curiosity in the public policy, thus public voices is heard through these groups.

The current complexity of the legislation process implies that special knowledge is needed among the policy makers. Inhabitants from diverse backgrounds are required to contribute towards the process of agenda setting. The members of the Congress have the opportunity of gaining significant expertise in their committee’s subject areas (Gruszczynski & Michaels 377). The functions of public institutions have changed from taking care of the state of being concerned about the welfare of the citizens. The legislature must convince both the public and private sectors that the intended legislation has more benefits than consequences to the society. This calls for collective responsibility and involvement, which takes the legislature extra time to address implicate issues in the policies.

Conclusion

Framing is based on the assumption that the understanding of the policy among the audience depends on the characterization of the issue in the news reports. Framing and agenda setting differ in their roles in information processing, news production and media effects. Different conditions are needed in processing messages in order to produce respective effects. The framing effect focuses on audience’s attention to the new messages, while agenda setting concentrates on repeated exposure to communication. Agenda setting arises from the aggregate impact of a large number of messages that have different content, but dealing with the same issue. Mass media coverage has an impact on what citizens think that other people are thinking; the public value issues that are extensively covered by the media. News sources provide definitions of issues, which determines the terms of future discussions and framing agendas in particular ways. The revolution and growth of both private and public sectors has led to governments encouraging participatory agenda setting systems. This affects the time and process of legislation in the Congress.

Works Cited

Cooper, Jonathan. Cognitive dissonance. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2007.

Gruszczynski, Michael W., and Sarah Michaels. “The Evolution of Elite Framing Following Enactment of Legislation.” Policy Sciences 45.4 (2012): 359-84.

Lee, N.-J, D.M McLeod, and D.V Shah. “Framing Policy Debates: Issue Dualism, Journalistic Frames, and Opinions on Controversial Policy Issues.” Communication Research. 35.5 (2008): 695-718. Print.

Meriläinen, Niina, and Marita Vos. “Framing Issues in the Public Debate: The Case of Human Rights.” Corporate Communications 18.1 (2013): 119-34.

Reid, Heather Lynn. “Impact of Issue Framing and Achievement Orientation on Strategic Decision Making among Senior Managers in the Medical Device and Technology Industry.” Columbia University, 2007. Print.