Introduction
“Imagine if you came across a single news story presented from four different perspectives?” This actually happens in the news media, such as in coverage of the Palestine-Israel conflict. A study by the Department of Media Studies at Bahria University in Islamabad, Pakistan, analyzed 400 news stories from four global media outlets (CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and Russia Today) from 2019 to 2022 and found that 90% of CNN’s reports and 78% of the BBC’s reports leaned toward a pro-Israel perspective, 48% of Al Jazeera’s reports leaned toward a pro-Palestinian perspective, while Russia Today positioned itself more neutral with 58% of its reports framed in a moral framework. Readers may end up receiving only one perspective and unconsciously overlook the other three perspectives that indirectly report the same events but use different language.
This does not happen by chance; it is a concept known as “agenda setting,” where the media not only reports on what is happening but also helps shape the mindset and opinions that should reach the audience. Indirectly, the media determines what perceptions of a piece of information should form in our minds. Consequently, the public needs to prioritize media literacy education to understand that no news is truly neutral, and to recognize how the media and language are so influential in shaping opinions and information.
What is Agenda Setting and How it Works? Agenda-setting is a communication theory that explains how the mass media has the ability to shift issues from the news agenda to the public agenda, shaping public perception of those issues so that the points highlighted by the media are also considered important by the public. This theory was first formulated by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw through the Chapel Hill study (1972), in which they compared the issues considered important by Chapel Hill residents with the issues most frequently reported by local and international media at the time. Therefore, this theory demonstrates that the media has control over the public’s attention and opinions.
The key concept of this theory is called “transfer of salience” (the process by which the importance of an issue shifts from the media to the public agenda). So in a given news story, the public can focus its attention on the aspects highlighted in that story. There are two key levels at play in agenda setting. The first concern is which issues are considered important. The more frequently the media highlights an issue, the more the public perceives it as important or a phenomenon often referred to as being “viral”. The second level involves how that issue is conceptualized, a process commonly known as ‘framing’. Which is how information is presented to make it easier to notice, understand, and remember. Even if a news story goes viral, the media’s response may still vary. This is shaped by how the media establishes patterns of interest around the issues they cover, though this approach is not always successful.
In traditional media such as television, professional journalists are typically trained to report the news from various perspectives. This approach focuses on the first level, which is telling the audience what they should think. Through the editorial process, the media decides which issues will be included in a broadcast, how long they will be covered, and in what order the news items will appear. However, due to limited airtime, the media usually selects only a few issues to highlight in depth. These are the issues that create the second level of agenda-setting. This relates to salience which refers to how the in-depth coverage of these issues leads the public to perceive them as important because of the details presented.
This is different from social media systems, which are more complex. On social media, algorithms and user behavior determine how agenda-setting works. Therefore, social media typically focuses more on how opinions are formed. The language used tends to appear more biased, and the transfer of salience is more linear due to personalization technology tailored to individual users. Consequently, a news story may go viral on one platform, but how the perspective of that story is presented by various media outlets depends on each user’s individual algorithm. This is why it’s important for social media users to be more discerning when processing the information that appears on their feeds.
This is where a crucial point regarding media and agenda-setting becomes so important. This is because in conventional media such as television, biases tend to be relatively transparent and can still be analyzed, such as who owns the newsroom, the policies in place, and the editorial stance. However, in the social media ecosystem, such factors are much more blurred (they could include government pressure, platform business decisions, or even patterns of user interaction), so we never truly know how the framing system operates between different users on a given platform.
Case Study: Reporting on the Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Agreement, January 15, 2025
On January 15, 2025, regarding the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, two media outlets (CNN and Al Jazeera) reported on the same story almost simultaneously. However, there was a difference in framing between CNN and Al Jazeera.
CNN highlighted the diplomatic process as the main issue, specifically the outcome of cooperation between the Biden and Trump camps, as well as President Biden’s call for negotiations to continue and lead to a permanent end of the war. CNN also noted that the details of the agreement remain vague and have not yet been approved by the Israel cabinet. However, the framing of this news story appears to be process-oriented, emphasizing the hard work of the negotiating teams and placing the agreement within the context of the U.S. power transition.
In contrast, Al Jazeera highlighted two issues: how Palestinians in Gaza celebrated the agreement and the figures who drove it. This was also supported by an analysis from the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, which cited Trump’s pressure on Netanyahu as the key to the negotiations. The framing of this news story leans toward skepticism regarding the agreement’s implementation, featuring reactions from journalists and residents on the ground. This stands alongside separate coverage documenting the escalation of Israel’s military attacks on Gaza just hours after the ceasefire agreement was announced, illustrating the gap between diplomatic promises and the reality on the ground.
This case study illustrates how there can be differing focuses within a single news report. The news topic covered may be the same, and both media outlets may even agree on the facts of the situation (regarding the ceasefire), yet they differ sharply on which aspect they choose to prioritize as the central focus of the report itself (U.S. diplomacy by CNN, and skepticism regarding diplomacy and reality by Al Jazeera).
From these two media outlets, we can also see how language plays a crucial role in framing. For example, compare the two explicit references to Hamas: “an armed group considered a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom” and “the Palestinian people’s resistance.” These two phrases refer to the same group, yet with very different characterizations, each of which subtly guides readers toward a perspective already shaped by the media.
This phenomenon has become even more complex with the rise of social media (through quotes, news clips, and article headlines) both of these frames can be circulated widely in Indonesia. However, most people often accept only one version, depending on which source appears in their news feed. Without the habit of cross-checking with other sources, people are typically exposed to only one version and believe what they read at face value without verifying it further. Compounded by algorithms that shape anonymous opinions that are difficult to trace and hold accountable, this has led to a digital literacy crisis, where people are often unaware that a single news story they receive is just one version among many circulating globally, especially in an era where the flow of information is increasingly fast and ultimately sparks endless debates on social media.
Impact on Society
The impact of agenda-setting and framing, particularly in the context of social media, is how a country “appears” in the eyes of the world, regardless of objective conditions. A country undergoing a legitimate and constitutional process can appear highly repressive if the framing highlights conflict and violence. Conversely, a country with structural problems can appear calm and stable if the framing emphasizes its stability. The media can easily frame a particular action as either a form of legitimate resistance or as an act of violence.
The risk that arises when there is no framing selection process is that the public accepts what they read at first glance. Meanwhile, the news they read on social media has gone through a long and multi-layered process of decision-making by various interest groups. This passivity ultimately triggers a crisis in which the public is easily influenced by the media without questioning the origins and completeness of the information, which is slowly disappearing.
The Importance of Digital Literacy in the Context of Agenda Setting
Digital literacy today is no longer simply a matter of being technologically skilled, but rather how people can understand the information presented to them. Digital literacy today is no longer just about content itself, but how people can process information by actively selecting which information to engage with based on interactive data, platform preferences, and even commercial and political interests that are not always transparent.
This is a crucial point that enables the public to understand the difference between “nothing happening” and “an event not being reported”. Someone without proper digital literacy will easily jump to conclusions about the information they receive. They might assume that the world or their country is doing just fine, when in reality the issue might exist but is being filtered out by various algorithms and policy pressures affecting the visibility of that news.
This skill is necessary so that the public can develop the most basic form of self-defense in today’s information landscape. It encourages people not to stop at a single source, but to actively seek out and examine other perspectives. Therefore, skills like this are the most specific and urgent to develop. After all, while we can now easily identify hoaxes, we may not necessarily be able to assess the visibility and transparency of the information that reaches us.
Closing
Agenda-setting is not a new concept. It was discovered more than five decades ago, long before the appearance of both conventional and modern media as we know them today. The difference here is not in the essence of agenda-setting, but in its form. While agenda-setting used to operate through media institutions and newsrooms, it now operates within the more complex and technical algorithms of social media.
Therefore, digital literacy is no longer just a technical skill but a fundamental form of self-defense. It is the awareness that not every piece of information we receive is necessarily a neutral reflection of reality. Therefore, making it a habit to consult more than one source before drawing conclusions about an issue is a small yet significant step. This does not mean becoming paranoid about information, but rather giving ourselves back a little control over the information we consume in order to decide what is worth knowing.
References
Al Jazeera. (2025, January 15). Live: Israel launches fierce strikes on Gaza as ceasefire deal moves closer. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/liveblog/2025/1/15/live-israel-launches-fierce-strikes-on-gaza-as-ceasefire-deal-moves-closer
Almakaty, S. S. (2025). Agenda setting theory in the digital media age: A comprehensive and critical literature review. Future Technology, 4(2), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.4.2.6 (doi.org in Bing)
CNN. (2024, January 15). Israel-Hamas war live updates: Ceasefire and hostage negotiations. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-hamas-gaza-ceasefire-hostages-01-15-24/index.html
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. Northwestern University.
McCombs, M. E. (1976). Agenda-setting research: A bibliographic essay. Syracuse University, Communication Research Center. ERIC Document ED132575.
Shahzad, F., Qazi, T. A., & Shehzad, R. (2023). Framing of Israel and Palestine conflict in RT news, Al-Jazeera, CNN & BBC News. Global Digital & Print Media Review, 6(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.31703/gdpmr.2023(VI-II).01 (doi.org in Bing)
Yang, W. (2024). Information cocoons on social media: Why and how should the government regulate algorithms. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15630.
