differences and similarities between the setting and framing
Weaver addresses differences and similarities between the setting and framing of the “second-level” agenda. The author also examines the similarities and differences between the shaping and priming of the agenda. Information on the amount of framing, agenda-setting, and priming studies indexed by interaction, findings on cognitive processes in the design, program-setting, and framing are also presented (Weaver 2007).
According to Weaver, there are significant similarities between the two phases of program setting and other derivatives in the media. The writer, however, indicates that each element is distinct and not identical. It means that journalists and media outlets are using the three components to achieve the desired result and increase the chance to meet the needs of the public in the sense of news production and distribution. The concept of salience, which often has two significances, emerges similar to other studies. The first one concerns the first step of the setting of the agenda, which focuses on perceived importance. As pointed out, in these situations, news content must be chosen and prioritized to promote public opinion and encourage or discourage such behavior.
The second meaning coincides with the accessibility element or the cognitive interpretation and understanding of the news. The focus is on a mental process in the setting of the agenda, although other factors such as relevance and uncertainty affect the take-up. The plan is, therefore, not based primarily on accessibility or the idea of the need for guidance. Although there are differences between the agenda, briefs, and framework, these aspects are mainly correlated and often work in harmony. Weaver has usually examined cognitive media effects in this research paper under the broad category. The theoretician has used very similar research methods and paid little attention to theoretical discrepancies and variations in the methodological levels within which each process operates.