One of the very classic roles attributed to the media and a first semester course for every communication student is the agenda setting. This means which issues are projected and how they are prioritized, that is, in what order and with what gravity they stand out.
The interesting thing about this agenda is the process of shaping it and especially the fact that this process is by no means one-dimensional. Sure, most of you think the process is simple: the more important an issue is, the higher it is on the agenda.
That is correct. But this “importance” is determined by many complex and conflicting criteria. Such criteria are local interest, possible ownership interests, the newsworthiness of a story, the exclusivity or not of an information, the timing of the publication and much more that industry professionals are obliged to know to guide and advise properly.
The combination of all these parameters essentially works like an algorithm that produces the agenda. And the result is often surprising because it does not match the “one-dimensional” meaning of the importance that we mentioned above, causing questions.
But because words often mean nothing, consider the following example: How many have seen / read the news about the first 3D bionic eye that may even help the blind see again? Probably not many. Now, how many of you have read / seen something on the story that… shocked Greece? Probably all of you. So, which of the two is more important?
