I think that we overwork our understanding of the agenda-setting function, if we want to adapt it to today's digital world. I would propose to keep the function, but to reconsider the mechanism which leads to an (individual) agenda. In my eyes, 'new' and 'old' media influence each other when it comes to the building of our agendas. My friends may have an influence on my personal agenda through social media, but they may also refer to news in traditional media. On the other hand I might advise my friends of some interesting news or an interesting article I've read in a newspaper and consider their response to it. Traditional media may also pick up an issue, which gains attention in social media, and 'transfer' it into traditional media. With such processes the ecosystem changes and 'old' and 'new' media rely on each other in what Messner and DiStaso (2008) called 'source cycle'.

Thanks for your answer. So, traditional media could pick up an issue from social network and transfer it into its vehicles...but, even in such a situation, couldn't we say that traditional media would be, perhaps, catching matters the same way it does with facts fisically seen? I have no answer for that, that's just a doubt.

Hey Ricardo

That's an interesting point, you're referring to! And I think, that you might be right, with your guess, that we have different mechanisms at work, by which news/information "rise" in social media compared to the traditional news ecosystem. I think with this point we're coming from agenda setting to the field of the theory of news values. A friend of mine at our institute is writing her phd on this topic (I'll invite her to our little discussion ;)).

I think that we might find answers to this question in the field of social network theories: So, topics brought up by close friends of mine, who are interested in similar topics like me, might reach a higher news value, than for example news brought up by strangers. Do you see what I mean? How do you think about this?

Hey Ricardo, hey Steffi,

thanks for inviting me to that interesting discussion. In my phd I'm trying to figure out, which effects are influencing the "rise" of a trending topic in social networks. I'm preparing an experiment, were I hopefully can identify the influencing effects. As Steffi mentioned there are different theoretical models explaining different perspectives of the question. Social media differs from traditional mass media because of the combination of network and content-related effects. Beginning with network theories, they can be devided in two different discussions as well. On the one hand there are hierarchical models, such as opinion leader theory. Applying the approach to the question, we can assume that opinion leaders of topic related groups are able to rise awareness regarding the topic and to spread the topic effictively in their groups. Therefore the opinion leader could increase the value of a message and trending topics can be formed by him. On the other hand there are epidemiologic models. They argue that spread of messages, ideas or innovations can happen via contagion. If a critical mass of messages to one topic is reached, people could be infected. The topic becomes a trending topic, that effects the Agenda. But those theories are explaining only one aspect of the discussion. The message itself must be considered as well. Here is were news value theory comes into focus. News values are for example if a message is about a prominent person, related to a local place combined with a massive damage etc.. The higher the news value of a message, the more likely it will be forwarded and influence the agenda. Hopefully in a couple of month I will be able to say more about those effects. I will find out which effect is mainly influencing the spread of a message or if effects are interacting with each other. Of course this is just a limited focus. What do you think? Did I explain it in a helful way?

Well, Stephanie and Jana, I think the invitation has been a splendid idea. Now, the question of news values, when they come from someone next to us and interested in similar matters, is, indeed, the question of how worthy is the source of information. Of course, mass media bring to us news through people we do not know personally, most of times, and sometimes we must trust some "credentials". If someone has leadership in giving shape to public opinion, where does lie his legitimmacy? Just like Jean Jacques Rousseau, I would ask this Mr. Someone "who's made you king?", although I know there is a legitimmacy code to speeches. The question of epidemiological models of messages, it would be interesting to know what makes a message to be able to be inexorabily passed forward ou, perhaps, probably passed forward. Agenda setting, after all, is a concept that works with the very idea of relevance, developed by Aristotle. It's interesting that social netowrk is a narrower environment than that one of traditional media, although it cannot be treated as an interindividual media. And that's why all these questions come to surface. But I think we can go on.

I am looking at it from the point of view of the promise of social media, horizontal versus top down communication. The agenda was set in the old media by an elite, and social media has disrupted this and anyone anywhere has the capacity to set the agenda. however, what I have seen with the Zimbabwean media and social media is that there is a two way relationship. the old media is still able to set the agenda, as most of the issues discussed on Social media is culled from the old media. the old media, has also benefited from the discussions as it culls the ideas on issues from the social media. this has left me a bit confused, thus my statement on the promise of social media.

I'm not sure, if you can devide the media into traditional = elite and social media = disruption of elitism. The network science shows the mentioned influence of opinion leaders. In a case study of the New York Times journalist Robert Mackey it could be observed, that journalists often act as opinion leaders for the mainstream. They do have the feasibility and the time to collect lots of information, filter and summarize them. This very high effort is part of their job and reputation and can't be simply achieved by everyone. So couldn't it be, that indeed everyone can publish his or her opinion, but the difficulty of beeing recognized by a remarkable mass to set an agenda is still very high?