“We judge as important what the media judges as important”

“We judge as important what the media judges as important”

This blog is an excerpt from my very last undergrad paper I wrote at University of Michigan-Flint last year, in reference to the agenda setting theory and current events.  Popularized in 1972, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw were interested in the overwhelming influence of mass media’s ability to transfer the salience of issues on their news agenda to public agenda.

In October of this year there were two big stories to cover in media, one was the political storm of the presidential race and the other was an actual storm named Sandy.    As both storms were gaining momentum, the media quickly found themselves in the crosswinds of a headline battle.  Suddenly a decision was forced to be made by media outlets as to which story trumped the other, in so far as which story was more prominent, frequent and how much time and energy was devoted to that particular story, hence the media’s agenda, which was exactly what Shaw and McComb look to uncover in their theory.  

While some individuals (the media) could argue that preparations for hurricane sandy were less important than election coverage, I think the majority of people would think the opposite.  After all, people’s health, well-being and lives are in jeopardy.

Whether you call it the effects of global warming, climate change or the Mayan’s doomsday, Natural Disasters are on the rise and it’s important that the media serves as a catalyst for the proper recovery efforts and particularly preparation warnings and strategies for the betterment of society.   

-“As natural and human-produced disasters increase around the world, public health messages promoting local preparedness and coordinating expert planning efforts are increasingly important.”  American Journal of Public Health

In addition to Hurricane Sandy, it has been estimated that over the ten year span between 2000-2010, approx. 5,000 natural disaster affected more than 2.2 billion people worldwide, killing approx. 850,000. These stats are quite staggering.  It’s becoming more and more obvious that there’s definitely a cause for concern and government officials and citizens alike are beginning to take notice.

When natural disasters are imminent, disaster preparations need to set precedent in the media’s coverage above other seemingly less important headlines that are not life threatening of alerting. This wasn’t the case for many media outlets in October of 2012.

To demonstrate the considerable difference between media’s agenda of prevention strategies and the severe outcomes of natural disasters, one needs to look no further than the most reliable name in news, CNN.  Looking through CNN’s archives, despite solid weeks’ notice from field professionals that Sandy was on her way, I located only about 30 articles about preparations. After Sandy hit, there were over 275 headlines articles, confirming the theory, “if it bleeds it leads”.

Perhaps even more surprising was comparing election headlines to sandy headlines. I was able to locate more than twice the amount of headlines referencing the election than those headlines for sandy’s preparation.  Those headlines that were present reflected headlines that read “Obama monitors hurricane, campaign says it will remain at full speed.” i.e.-government agenda=media agenda.

What this meant was on October 29^th when Sandy pounded the U.S., many citizens in the densely populated areas of east coast were ill-prepared.  According to climate and weather specialists, Sandy brought with her more than 15 inches of rain, wind gusts upwards of 90 mph, dumped nearly 3 feet of snow and most chocking was the near 15 feet ocean tides. Her stat’s are a prime indicator as how important prevention strategies are in the media.

Further, after the disaster hits, when dispersing relief aid information and progress, the media mustn’t over sensationalize effects of the disaster.  Clearly this can be damaging to the media’s reputation and credibility, (chicken little), the public may not listen next time there’s a real imminent danger.

While predicting natural disaster may not always be 100% accurate, technology has really upped the ante as far as their accuracy to inform society of the imminent and increasing threats to civilization.  Perhaps media news outlets should look to Bloomberg Businessweek and their exuberant magazine cover that simply stated “It’s Global Warming Stupid,” I'm sure that headline surely grabbed people’s attention.