Does TikTok make younger people more susceptible to agenda-setting?
A brief overview on Media Effects
This week’s readings mentioned the abundance of choices in TV news media and how it can lead to echo chambers for its audience. That’s still a genuine concern today, with news sources seeming infinite as Gen-Z becomes the first generation to get their news predominately from social media.1 Algorithms on social media can keep users in a predetermined viewpoint after only a few interactions. In today’s world, being informed not only gives you information on a topic but also influences its importance. Young people throughout history have been considered at higher risk for becoming victims of radicalization, but how true is that for Gen-Z? To dig deeper, we must examine agenda-setting from some of its earliest observations. As early as the 1970s, it was observed that the more emphasis mass media puts on a major item, the more likely people will independently judge it as more significant.2 In essence, agenda-setting doesn’t refer to getting its audience to think a certain way, but rather how much to think about a certain subject.
Research a decade later focused on agenda-setting and its effects; with interesting results. In an experiment where two groups (one being a control) had identical views on America’s defense preparedness (pre-experiment), one was subjected to news clips of inadequacies. A difference between the groups began to form as those exposed to clips of inadequacies in defense became more concerned about it.3 That exact thing happened, and similar results followed in similar experiments that had durations ranging from hours to months.
Fast-forward to late 2000, and with time comes innovation; the more plentiful number of channels allows viewers to have a wider selection of what they watch and, more importantly, what they don’t watch. In the early days of television, ABC, CBS, and NBC were the only options for news-seekers, and the stations had to maintain an unbiased perspective to keep their viewers dependent on them for their reliable source of news media.4 As more channels emerged, so did more news sources, and thus, the competition for the audiences of news-seekers became even more challenging for the news stations. To remedy this, an economic incentive arose, where news stations had an easier time fighting for a guaranteed portion of viewers if they had similar political leanings to them; for example, Fox News is considered a “niche news” network because it leans conservative. This is better tailored for each individual as now they have options on what media to consume, but with it comes the risk of being trapped in an echo chamber of similar thoughts. With the amount of options, if someone sees something they disagree with, they can easily find something that fits their preexisting narratives.
Perhaps TV News media is to blame for polarization? Not exactly. At first glance, it seems logical that if someone is, say, leaning very left, having them watch Fox would help give them a more neutral political view, but that’s not the case at all. People who would disagree with Fox’s conservative narrative would be much more skeptical about their information, which is similar to conservatives hearing liberal narratives in the news.5 It turns out that not only will people avoid news they disagree with, but they’ll also be less accepting of it and thus likely to dismiss it instead of adopting it.
Gen Z is known for being less willing to negotiate, but is it really because of TikTok? It depends on what qualifies for blame. Even propaganda has never been able to completely change a participant’s objective view on what is right and wrong, though the public agenda has an effect on its priority of importance for certain subjects. For example, equality perhaps was not as emphasized to older generations, and such vulgar jokes and slurs were much more common even in my youth, who was born in 1996. A PSA from the official Special Olympics website reminds everyone that using the R-word as an insult is offensive, and younger people are fully aware of this as society progresses.6 This being said, older people might think they’re too sensitive if they get scolded by a younger person for a word they’ve been saying for decades; it doesn’t necessarily mean a political divide because one prioritizes inclusiveness as more important. Radical views have existed in every generation, but so have moderate ones. The use of a slur was a very mild example of political differences blamed on media effects, but my point is that perhaps people are missing the big picture. Some of the readings have predicted TV will radicalize and polarize the nation with information overload, and now people are predicting the same thing with social media. In essence, social media might affect political beliefs, but it cannot be used in a positive argument of causing polarization. This being said, it does allow further research to be conducted better to understand these new effects of media on the public.
Pew. “News Platform Fact Sheet.” 2023. Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. November 15, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-fact-sheet/.
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36, No. 2 (1972). pg. 180
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. University of Chicago Press, 1987. Chapters 3, 6, 12.
Bennett, W. Lance, and Shanto Iyengar. A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication. Journal of Communication 58, No. 4 (2008) pg. 717
Arceneaux, Kevin, and Martin Johnson. Changing Minds or Changing Channels?: Partisan News in an Age of Choice. University of Chicago Press, 2013. Chapters 1, 2, 8.
Special Olympics. “Why the R-Word Is the R-Slur.” 2020. SpecialOlympics.org. https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-word-is-the-r-slur.