News consumption has been dramatically altered by the rise of social media. The current study examines the international news section of Google News by looking at the frequency and valence of coverage of other nations. News headlines and snippets about various countries are compared to public perceptions, in order to assess the agenda set by the most popular online news aggregator: Google. The public agenda is based on a dedicated survey. Study results provide qualified support for a framework derived from agenda setting theory. In particular, systems-level variables--such as a nation‘s political philosophy and perceived cultural proximity--influence media agenda-setting.
AntunovicD.ParsonsP.CookeT. R. (2018). Checking‘ and Googling: Stages of news consumption among young adults. Journalism, 19(5), 632–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916663625
2.
AtkinD.HuntD.LinC. A. (2015). Diffusion theory in the new media environment: Towards an integrated model of technology adoption. Mass Communication & Society, 18(5), 623–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1066014
3.
BennettW. L.IyengarS. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x
BucyE.GantzW.WangZ. (2007). Media technology and the 24-h news cycle. In LinC.AtkinD. (Eds.), Communication technology and social change (pp. 143–164). Lawrence Erlbaum.
EdgerlyS. (2017). Seeking out and avoiding the news media: Young adults’ proposed strategies for obtaining current events information. Mass Communication and Society, 20(3), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1262424
FeldmanL.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. International Journal of Press/Politics, 1791(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211425410
GeersS. (2020). News consumption across media platforms and content: A typology of young news users. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(S1), 332–354. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa010
12.
GerbnerG.GrossL.MorganM.SignorielliN. (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In BryantJ.ZillmannD. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17–41). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
GroshekJ.GroshekM. (2013). Agenda trending: Reciprocity and the predictive capacity of social network sites in intermedia agenda setting across issues over time. Media and Communication, 1(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v1i1.71
16.
GuoL.VargoC. J. (2020). Predictors of international news flow: Exploring a networked global media system. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1796391
JagerJ.PutnickD. L.BornsteinM. H. (2017). More than just convenient: The scientific merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(2), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12296
21.
JeffresL.AtkinD.LeeJ.NeuendorfK. (2011). Media influences on public perceptions of ethnic groups, generations, and individuals. The Howard Journal of Communications, 22(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2011.546748
22.
JeffresL.AtkinD.NeuendorfK. (2001). Expanding the range of dependent measures in mainstreaming and cultivation analysis. Communication Research Reports, 18(4), 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090109384822
23.
JeffresL.BrackenC.NeuendorfK.AtkinD.KopfmanJ. (2014). Cosmopoliteness, cultivation and media use. Journal of Communication and Media Research, 6(1), 1–23.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE Publications.
26.
LindR. A. (2010). Race gender media: Considering diversity across audiences, content, and producers (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
27.
LippmannW. (1922). Public opinion. Dover Publications.
28.
MaierS. (2020). The world view(ed) through the English-speaking media lens: Foreign news coverage steadfastly narrow and uniform. The Journal of International Communication, 26, 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2020.1797849
29.
McCombsM.Lopez-EscobarE.LlamasJ. P. (2000). Setting the agenda attributes in the 1996 spanish general election. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02842.x
30.
McCombsM.ReynoldsA. (2009). How the news shapes our civic agenda. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed, pp. 1–16). Routledge.
31.
McCombsM.ShawD. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2). https://doi.org/50.28.174.169
32.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L.WeaverD. H. (2014). New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society, 17(6), 781–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.964871
MuddimanA.StroudN.McCombsM. (2014). Media framing, attribute agenda setting, and political opinion about Iraq. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 58(14), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.906433
35.
NeuendorfK. A.AtkinD.JeffresL.BillmanA. W.LoszakT. (2009). The influence of attitudes on affirmative action and racial identity on judgments involving black celebrity defendants. The Howard Journal of Communications, 20(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646170802665257
36.
NeumanR.JustR.CriglerN. (1992). Common knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
PerloffR.M. (2019). Mass communication research at the crossroads: Definitional issues and theoretical directions for mass and political communication scholarship in the age of online media (pp. 531–536). Routledge.
Pew. (2021). More than eight-in-ten Americans get news from digital devices. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-eight-in-ten-americans-getnews-from-digital-devices/.
42.
PingreeR. J.QuenetteA. M.TchernevJ. M.DickinsonT. (2013). Effects of media criticism on gatekeeping trust and implications for agenda setting. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12016
43.
RillL. A.DavisC. B. (2008). Testing the second level of agenda setting: Effects of news frames on reader-assigned attributes of hezbollah and Israel in the 2006 war in Lebanon. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(3), 609–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900808500308
44.
RogersE. M.DearingJ. W. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where has it been? Where is it going? In AndersonJ. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 11 (pp. 555–594). Sage.
45.
SegevE. (2017). From where does the world look flatter? A comparative analysis of foreign coverage in world news. Journalism, 20(7), 924–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916688292
46.
SemetkoH.ValkenburgP. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. International Communication Association.
47.
SemetkoH. A.BrzinskiJ. B.WeaverD.WillnatL. (1992). TV News and US public opinion and foreign countries: The impact of exposure and attention. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/4.1.18
ShoemakerP. J.DanielianL. H.BrendlingerN. (1991). Deviant acts, risky business and U.S. Interests: The newsworthiness of world events. Journalism Quarterly, 68(4), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909106800419
50.
StraubhaarJ. (1991). Beyond media imperialism: Asymmetrical interdependence and cultural proximity. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039109366779
51.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University.
52.
TsfatiY. (2003). Does audience skepticism of the media matter in agenda setting?Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 47(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4702_1
53.
TunstallJ. (2008). The media were American: U.S. mass media in decline. Oxford.
54.
UlkenE. (2005). A question of balance: Are Google News search results politically biased?USC Annenberg School for Communication.
55.
UmamaheswarJ. (2015). 9/11 And the evolution of newspaper representations of incarcerated muslims. Crime, Media, Culture, 11, 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659015588403
56.
VargoC.GuoL. (2016). Networks, big data, and intermediate agenda setting: An analysis of traditional, partisan, and emerging online U.S. News. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(4), 1031–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016679976
57.
WantaW.GolanG.LeeC. (2004). Agenda setting and international news: Media influence on public perceptions of foreign nations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100209
58.
WantaW.HuY. (1993). The agenda-setting effect of international news coverage: An examination of differing news frames. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/IJPOR/5.3.250
59.
WatanabeK. (2013). The western perspective in yahoo! news and google news: Quantitative analysis of geographic coverage of online news. The International Communication Gazette, 75(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048512465546
60.
WuD. (2007). A brave new world for international news? Exploring the determinants of the coverage of foreign news on US websites. International Communication Gazette, 69(6), 539–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048507082841
61.
ZuckerH. (1978). The variable nature of news media influence. In RubenB. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 2. Transaction books.
