Framing and the Public Agenda: Media Effects on the Importance of the Federal Budget Deficit

TLDR

Public opinion polls show dramatic shifts in how many people consider the federal budget deficit the most important issue between November 1994 and April 1996. The study investigates how media coverage influences the importance assigned to the federal budget deficit. The authors model Roper Center opinion polls against predictions derived from media content to assess media effects. Combining agenda‑setting and framing theories, the authors find that a model incorporating both the amount and the nuance of media coverage better explains the observed shifts in public opinion than either theory alone. Key words: agenda setting, federal budget, framing, media effects, public opinion, public opinion polls, content analysis.

Abstract

Abstract What explains the shift in public opinion over time on the issue of the 1996 U.S. federal budget? Public opinion polls demonstrate dramatic shifts in the percentage of people considering the budget issue to be the most important problem facing the country from November 1994 through April 1996. In this article, we model Roper Center opinion polls against a prediction of opinion from media content to investigate how media coverage affects the importance assigned to the budget issue. We identify four dominant frames present in media coverage of the budget issue and argue that a model combining the theories of agenda setting and framing provides a better explanation for the shifts in aggregate opinion than either theory on its own. By combining framing with the traditional agenda-setting approach, we take into account the nuances of cover age within the issue, in addition to the sheer amount of cover age, for a more complete explanation of media effects on public opinion on the issue of the federal budget. Key Words: agenda settingfederal budgetframingmedia effectspublic opinionpublic opinion pollscontent analysis