| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
International Journal of Public Opinion Research 15:44-64 (2003)
© 2003 World Association for Public Opinion Research
Agenda-Rich, Agenda-Poor: A Cross-National Comparative Investigation of Nominal and Thematic Public Agenda Diversity
Jochen Peter and Claes de Vreese are Ph.D. candidates at the Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) of the University of Amsterdam.
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Jochen Peter, ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Email: peter{at}pscw.uva.nl
This study is a cross-national comparative investigation of (1) similarities and differences between nominal and thematic public agenda diversity both within and between countries; (2) potential general predictors of the two types of agenda diversity; and (3) the relationship between the agenda diversity of television news and nominal and thematic public agenda diversity. Drawing on representative, identical surveys conducted at the same point of time in Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, we found that nominal agenda diversity was higher than thematic agenda diversity within the various countries. Between countries, both nominal and thematic agenda diversity varied considerably. Neither demographic variables nor media exposure and attention measures nor political interest turned out to be general predictors of the two types of agenda diversity in all of the countries. However, the number of television news outlets watched had a positive impact on both nominal and thematic agenda diversity in all countries except France. Linking content analysis of television news in each country to survey data, a positive relationship between news agenda diversity and public agenda diversity was found only for Denmark. Based on the findings, we suggest that the investigation of public agenda diversity should be rethought to enhance our understanding of public agenda diversity in particular and agenda-setting in general.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Huang Frame-Rich, Frame-Poor: An Investigation of the Contingent Effects of Media Frame Diversity and Individual Differences on Audience Frame Diversity Int. J. Public Opin. Res., October 22, 2009; (2009) edp024v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. E. Dardis Military Accord, Media Discord: A Cross-National Comparison of UK vs US Press Coverage of Iraq War Protest International Communication Gazette, October 1, 2006; 68(5-6): 409 - 426. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Takeshita Current Critical Problems in Agenda-Setting Research Int. J. Public Opin. Res., September 1, 2006; 18(3): 275 - 296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Schoenbach, E. de Waal, and E. Lauf Research Note: Online and Print Newspapers: Their Impact on the Extent of the Perceived Public Agenda European Journal of Communication, June 1, 2005; 20(2): 245 - 258. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|