Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 454 Download : 74

Main Article Content

Abstract

This thorough literature study looks at how Agenda Setting Theory (AST) has developed in the digital media era over the last two decades (2004-2024). From its beginnings in McCombs and Shaw's work, the study tracks AST's evolution across three levels: issue salience transfer, attribute agenda setting, and the more recent Network Agenda Setting model. It examines how digital media's qualities- fragmentation, interactivity, algorithmic curation, and decentralized gatekeeping- have challenged and altered conventional agenda-setting mechanisms. Based on about 40 studies, the analysis concludes that although agenda-setting impacts remain online, they function in a more complicated, networked manner with a broader spectrum of players affecting public agendas. The article investigates digital platforms' empirical data, the rise of new agenda-setting players outside conventional media, and issues including audience fragmentation and false information. AST is still shown to be relevant, but major adjustments are needed to grasp the several aspects of agenda creation completely in today's mixed media environment.

Keywords

Agenda setting theory Digital media Social media Network agenda setting Algorithmic curation Misinformation

Article Details

How to Cite
Almakaty, S. S. . (2025). Agenda setting theory in the digital media age: a comprehensive and critical literature review . Future Technology, 4(2), 51–60. Retrieved from https://fupubco.com/futech/article/view/312
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Bookmark and Share

References

  1. M. E. McCombs and D. L. Shaw, "The agenda-setting function of mass media," Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 176–187, 1972, doi: 10.1086/267990.
  2. M. McCombs and D. Evatt, "Los temas y los aspectos: Explorando una nueva dimensión de la agenda setting [Issues and attributes: Exploring a new dimension of agenda setting]," Comunicación y Sociedad, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 7–32, 1995. [Online]. Available: https://revistas.unav.edu/index.php/communication-and-society/article/view/35616
  3. S. Ghanem, "Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting," in Communication and Democracy: Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory, M. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, and D. Weaver, Eds. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997, pp. 3–14, ISBN: 978-0805825541.
  4. L. Guo and M. McCombs, "Network agenda setting: A third level of media effects," ICA Pre-Conference on the Theory of Agenda Setting, Boston, MA, USA, 2011.
  5. D. H. Weaver, D. A. Graber, M. E. McCombs, and C. H. Eyal, Media Agenda-Setting in a Presidential Election: Issues, Images, and Interest. New York, NY, USA: Praeger, 1981, ISBN: 978-0030594601.
  6. T. Takeshita, "Agenda-setting effects of the press in a Japanese local election," Studies of Broadcasting, vol. 33, pp. 193–216, 1997.
  7. D. H. Weaver, "Political issues and voter need for orientation," in The Emergence of American Political Issues: The Agenda-Setting Function of the Press, D. L. Shaw and M. E. McCombs, Eds. St. Paul, MN, USA: West Publishing, 1977, pp. 107–119, ISBN: 978-0829900736.
  8. M. McCombs, E. Lopez-Escobar, and J. P. Llamas, "Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election," Journal of Communication, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 77–92, 2000, doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02842.x.
  9. S. H. Kim and M. McCombs, "News story descriptions and the public's opinions of political candidates," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 299–314, 2007, doi: 10.1177/107769900708400206.
  10. S. Kiousis, "Explicating media salience: A factor analysis of New York Times issue coverage during the 2000 U.S. presidential election," Journal of Communication, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 71–87, 2004, doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02614.x.
  11. M. McCombs and S. I. Ghanem, "The convergence of agenda setting and framing," in Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., and A. E. Grant, Eds. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001, pp. 67–81, ISBN: 978-0805836530.
  12. J. G. Webster and T. B. Ksiazek, "The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of digital media," Journal of Communication, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 39–56, 2012, doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01616.x.
  13. M. Prior, Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN: 978-0521675338, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139878425.
  14. A. Bruns, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York, NY, USA: Peter Lang, 2008, ISBN: 978-0820488660, doi: 10.3726/978-1-4539-0882-8.
  15. S. Meraz, "Is there an elite hold? Traditional media power in an online world: An agenda-setting exploration of online news influence for the duration of the 2004 U.S. presidential election," Journalism Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 359–375, 2009, doi: 10.1080/14616700802636916.
  16. E. Pariser, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. London, UK: Penguin, 2011, ISBN: 978-0241954522.
  17. T. Bucher, "The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms," Information, Communication & Society, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 30–44, 2017, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086.
  18. C. R. Sunstein, Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2017, ISBN: 978-0691175515, doi: 10.1515/9781400884711.
  19. K. Thorson, "The algorithmic turn in political communication," Political Communication, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 333–338, 2016, doi: 10.1080/10584609.2016.1184223.
  20. P. J. Shoemaker and T. P. Vos, Gatekeeping Theory. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2009, ISBN: 978-0415981392, doi: 10.4324/9780203931653.
  21. J. Wallace, "Modelling contemporary gatekeeping: The rise of intermediaries," European Journal of Communication, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 17–31, 2018, doi: 10.1177/0267323117745751.
  22. S. Vosoughi, D. Roy, and S. Aral, "The spread of true and false news online," Science, vol. 359, no. 6380, pp. 1146–1151, 2018, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9559.
  23. L. Guo and M. McCombs, Eds., The Power of Information Networks: New Directions for Agenda Setting. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2016, ISBN: 978-1138847286, doi: 10.4324/9781315722528.
  24. J. Lim, "The agenda-setting role of online news media: An analysis of online newspapers in Singapore," Journal of Communication, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 515–533, 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01553.x.
  25. B. A. Conway, K. Kenski, and D. Wang, "The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 162–183, 2015, doi: 10.1177/1077699014563553.
  26. C. J. Vargo, L. Guo, M. McCombs, and D. L. Shaw, "Network issue agendas on the web: Comparing traditional news media, political blogs, and user-generated content about health care reform," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 226–244, 2014, doi: 10.1177/1077699014529835.
  27. R. A. Harder, J. Sevenans, and P. Van Aelst, "Intermedia agenda setting in the social media age: How traditional players dominate the news agenda in election times," The International Journal of Press/Politics, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 275–293, 2017, doi: 10.1177/1940161217704969.
  28. J. H. Parmelee, "The agenda-building function of political tweets," New Media & Society, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 434–450, 2014, doi: 10.1177/1461444813487955.
  29. B. Sayre, L. Bode, D. Shah, D. Wilcox, and C. Shah, "Agenda setting in a digital age: Tracking attention to California proposition 8 in social media, online news and conventional news," Policy & Internet, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 7–32, 2010, doi: 10.2202/1944-2866.1040.
  30. J. T. Feezell, "Agenda setting through social media: The importance of incidental news exposure and social filtering in the digital era," Political Research Quarterly, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 482–494, 2018, doi: 10.1177/1065912917744895.
  31. J. Turcotte, C. York, J. Irving, R. M. Scholl, and R. J. Pingree, "News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 520–535, 2015, doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12127.
  32. R. Epstein and R. E. Robertson, "The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 112, no. 33, pp. E4512–E4521, 2015, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1419828112.
  33. B. Pan et al., "In Google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 801–823, 2007, doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x.
  34. W. L. Bennett and S. Iyengar, "A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication," Journal of Communication, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 707–731, 2008, doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x.
  35. G. Ku, R. Wei, and V. H. Lo, "Whose agenda is it online? Examining the agenda-setting effects of online news and user-generated comments regarding the 2004 Taiwan presidential election," Asian Journal of Communication, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 359–376, 2007, doi: 10.1080/01292980701637009.
  36. M. J. Kushin and M. Yamamoto, "Did social media really matter? College students' use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election," Mass Communication and Society, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 608–630, 2010, doi: 10.1080/15205436.2010.516863.
  37. P. Roessler, "Media effects models in times of digitization and personalization," Communications, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 365–379, 2008, doi: 10.1515/COMM.2008.023.
  38. L. Guo, "The application of network analysis to comparative agenda-setting research," International Communication Gazette, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 3–21, 2012, doi: 10.1177/1748048511426985.
  39. D. L. Shaw, M. E. McCombs, D. H. Weaver, and B. J. Hamm, "Individuals, groups, and agenda setting: Individual-level, group-level, and societal-level agenda setting effects," in The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication, K. Kenski and K. H. Jamieson, Eds. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2017, ISBN: 978-0199793471, doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.83.
  40. H. T. Vu, L. Guo, and M. E. McCombs, "Exploring 'the world outside and the pictures in our heads': A network agenda-setting study," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 669–686, 2014, doi: 10.1177/1077699014550090.
  41. W. Wanta and M. F. Alkazemi, "Agenda setting theory: Evolution and challenges," in An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, 3rd ed., D. W. Stacks and M. B. Salwen, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2022, pp. 125–139, ISBN: 978-0367354305, doi: 10.4324/9781003091714-13.
  42. N. Kligler-Vilenchik and O. Tenenboim, "Networked agenda setting: Media, peers, and issue maps in the digital age," Political Communication, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 331–352, 2020, doi: 10.1080/10584609.2019.1674794.
  43. T. Graham, M. Broersma, K. Hazelhoff, and G. van 't Haar, "Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters: The use of Twitter during the 2010 UK general election campaign," Information, Communication & Society, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 692–716, 2013, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581.
  44. I. Rogstad, "Is Twitter just rehashing? Intermedia agenda setting between Twitter and mainstream media," Journal of Information Technology & Politics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 142–158, 2016, doi: 10.1080/19331681.2016.1160263.
  45. C. Abidin, Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, 2018, ISBN: 978-1787560796, doi: 10.1108/9781787560772.
  46. C. Lou and S. Yuan, "Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded content on social media," Journal of Interactive Advertising, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 58–73, 2019, doi: 10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501.
  47. S. Allan, Ed., The Routledge Companion to Citizen Journalism. London, UK: Routledge, 2013, ISBN: 978-1138665965, doi: 10.4324/9781315622057.
  48. M. Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2012, ISBN: 978-0745662855.
  49. D. Freelon, C. D. McIlwain, and M. D. Clark, "Beyond the hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the online struggle for offline justice," Center for Media & Social Impact, American University, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://cmsimpact.org/resource/beyond-hashtags-ferguson-blacklivesmatter-online-struggle-offline-justice/
  50. N. Diakopoulos, "Algorithmic accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures," Digital Journalism, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 398–415, 2015, doi: 10.1080/21670811.2014.976411.
  51. S. Iyengar and K. S. Hahn, "Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use," Journal of Communication, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 19–39, 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x.
  52. Z. Papacharissi, "The virtual sphere 2.0: The internet, the public sphere, and beyond," in Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, A. Chadwick and P. N. Howard, Eds. London, UK: Routledge, 2009, pp. 230–245, ISBN: 978-0415780582, doi: 10.4324/9780203962541.
  53. N. Thurman and S. Schifferes, "The future of personalization at the BBC," Journalism Practice, vol. 6, no. 5-6, pp. 701–718, 2012, doi: 10.1080/17512786.2012.667269.
  54. W. R. Neuman, L. Guggenheim, S. M. Jang, and S. Y. Bae, "The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data," Journal of Communication, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 193–214, 2014, doi: 10.1111/jcom.12088.
  55. E. Dubois and G. Blank, "The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media," Information, Communication & Society, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 729–745, 2018, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656.
  56. D. Tewksbury and J. Rittenberg, News on the Internet: Information and Citizenship in the 21st Century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012, ISBN: 978-0195391961, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195391961.001.0001.
  57. K. H. Jamieson and J. N. Cappella, Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN: 978-0195366822, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195366822.001.0001.
  58. P. Barberá, J. T. Jost, J. Nagler, J. A. Tucker, and R. Bonneau, "Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?," Psychological Science, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 1531–1542, 2015, doi: 10.1177/0956797615594620.
  59. S. U. Noble, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York, NY, USA: NYU Press, 2018, ISBN: 978-1479837243, doi: 10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5.
  60. S. Bradshaw and P. N. Howard, "The global disinformation order: 2019 global inventory of organised social media manipulation," Project on Computational Propaganda, University of Oxford, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/posts/the-global-disinformation-order-2019-global-inventory-of-organised-social-media-manipulation/
  61. C. Wardle and H. Derakhshan, "Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making," Council of Europe report DGI(2017)09, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c
  62. B. Nyhan and J. Reifler, "When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions," Political Behavior, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 303–330, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2.
  63. N. Walter, J. Cohen, R. L. Holbert, and Y. Morag, "Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom," Political Communication, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 350–375, 2020, doi: 10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894.
  64. B. E. Weeks and R. K. Garrett, "Emotional resonance of false information in social media," Communication Research, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 452-475, 2023, doi: 10.1177/00936502211069145.
  65. L. Bode and E. K. Vraga, "See something, say something: Correction of global health misinformation on social media," Health Communication, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1131–1140, 2018, doi: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312.
  66. D. A. Scheufele and N. M. Krause, "Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 16, pp. 7662–7669, 2019, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1805871115.
  67. R. K. Garrett, "Social media's contribution to political misperceptions in U.S. Presidential elections," PLoS ONE, vol. 14, no. 3, p. e0213500, 2019, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213500.
  68. Y. Theocharis and J. W. van Deth, "The continuous expansion of citizen participation: A new taxonomy," European Political Science Review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 139–163, 2018, doi: 10.1017/S1755773916000230.
  69. S. González-Bailón and W. Wang, "Networked discontent: The anatomy of protest campaigns in social media," Social Networks, vol. 44, pp. 95–104, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2015.07.003.
  70. E. Bakshy, I. Rosenn, C. Marlow, and L. Adamic, "The role of social networks in information diffusion," in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, Lyon, France, 2012, pp. 519–528, doi: 10.1145/2187836.2187907.
  71. T. Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press, 2018, ISBN: 978-0300173130, doi: 10.12987/9780300235029.
  72. J. Kaiser, A. Rauchfleisch, and M. Bourassa, "Connecting the (far-)right dots: A topic modeling and hyperlink analysis of far-right media coverage during the US elections 2020," Digital Journalism, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 519–539, 2022, doi: 10.1080/21670811.2021.1914709.
  73. P. Napoli, "Social media and the public interest: Governance of news platforms in the realm of individual and algorithmic gatekeepers," Telecommunications Policy, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 751–760, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2014.12.003.
  74. E. Tandoc, Z. W. Lim, and R. Ling, "Defining 'fake news': A typology of scholarly definitions," Digital Journalism, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 137–153, 2018, doi: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143.
  75. H. Jenkins, S. Ford, and J. Green, Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York, NY, USA: New York University Press, 2013, ISBN: 978-0814743508, doi: 10.2307/j.ctt9qfk6w.
  76. A. J. Berinsky, "Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation," British Journal of Political Science, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 241–262, 2017, doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000186.
  77. A. Marwick and R. Lewis, "Media manipulation and disinformation online," Data & Society Research Institute, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://datasociety.net/library/media-manipulation-and-disinfo-online/
  78. Z. Tufekci, Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press, 2017, ISBN: 978-0300215120, doi: 10.12987/9780300228373.
  79. S. C. Lewis and O. Westlund, "Big data and journalism: Epistemology, expertise, economics, and ethics," Digital Journalism, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 447–466, 2015, doi: 10.1080/21670811.2014.976418.
  80. S. Boulianne, "Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research," Information, Communication & Society, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 524–538, 2015, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542.
  81. M. A. Cacciatore, D. A. Scheufele, and S. Iyengar, "The end of framing as we know it … and the future of media effects," Mass Communication and Society, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–23, 2016, doi: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811.
  82. L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, and J. S. Levy, The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013, ISBN: 978-0199760107, doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199760107.001.0001.
  83. H. Ziegele, T. K. F. Chan, and C. M. K. Cheung, "Role of social media in online travel information search," Tourism Management, vol. 44, pp. 244–259, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.03.012.
  84. D. E. Agosto and J. Abbas, "Youth and online social networking: What do we know so far?," in The Information Behavior of a New Generation: Children and Teens in the 21st Century, J. Beheshti and A. Large, Eds. Lanham, MD, USA: Scarecrow Press, 2013, pp. 117–141, ISBN: 978-0810885943.
  85. N. Jomini Stroud, "Polarization and partisan selective exposure," Journal of Communication, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 556–576, 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x.
  86. A. R. Schrock, "Civic hacking as data activism and advocacy: A history from publicity to open government data," New Media & Society, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 581–599, 2016, doi: 10.1177/1461444816629469.
  87. E. Borra and B. Rieder, "Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets," Aslib Journal of Information Management, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 262–278, 2014, doi: 10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0094.
  88. J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, T. Burger, Trans. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1991, ISBN: 978-0262581080.
  89. J. B. Horrigan, "Information overload," Pew Research Center, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/12/07/information-overload/
  90. A. Hermida, F. Fletcher, D. Korell, and D. Logan, "Share, like, recommend: Decoding the social media news consumer," Journalism Studies, vol. 13, no. 5-6, pp. 815–824, 2012, doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2012.664430.
  91. M. Prior, "Media and political polarization," Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 16, pp. 101–127, 2013, doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242.
  92. R. M. Bond et al., "A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization," Nature, vol. 489, no. 7415, pp. 295–298, 2012, doi: 10.1038/nature11421.
  93. D. L. Lasorsa, S. C. Lewis, and A. E. Holton, "Normalizing Twitter: Journalism practice in an emerging communication space," Journalism Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 19–36, 2012, doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2011.571825.
  94. M. McCombs, "A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future," Journalism Studies, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 543–557, 2005, doi: 10.1080/14616700500250438.
  95. A. Smith, "Public attitudes toward technology companies," Pew Research Center, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/06/28/public-attitudes-toward-technology-companies/
  96. S. Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York, NY, USA: PublicAffairs, 2019, ISBN: 978-1610395694.
  97. J. Strömbäck and S. Kiousis, "A new look at agenda-setting effects—Comparing the predictive power of overall political news consumption and specific news media consumption across different media channels and media types," Journal of Communication, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 271–292, 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01482.x.