Who really sets the agenda?
I was really intrigued by the article "The Impact of Nonprofit Organizations’ Media Relations on Donations to Crisis Relief Efforts: A Test of the Agenda Setting Theory". I think it brought alot of interesting topics to the table. I don't have a background in PR but I was drawn to this article since it had an international flare, which is my main interest.
The theme of the article focuses on the lack of empirical data that has been conducted to research the correlation between media coverage and public attention. With my first glance at the hypothesis I also made the wrong assumption that the main object of fundraising was to make money and that media coverage would increaes the public's desire to donate. But as I looked over the research I learned that the main objective of fundraising is to create relationships and maintain an honest reputation which contrasts with Horton's article about the underlying profit motive. Horton mentioned the lack of relationships and reputation in PR but fundraising's main objective is to create these two things. This creates an interesting correlation to why so many people think that fundraising is about raising money. The majority of the public thinks fundraising is about making money because of the lack of relationships and reputation in the business or PR field and this lack or substantial meaning allows the profit mindset to take root.
International crisis' happen around the world everyday, but the majority of the public doesn't care what happens in Africa or India because its doesn't affect their everyday life. What made America and the rest of the world come together and donate millions to a tsunami disaster? The agenda setting capacity of the media! The public doesn't control what is put on the evening news, its usually blood, bombs and babes or anything that will create a leading story. The media is a coorporration, and with any business, profit is seen by dollar signs so what bleeds, leads on the news. It would be interesting to see what the public would choose to call "news" if the power of agenda setting was in the hands of the public.
The artcile concluded that the best way for non-profits to gain more attention in the media is not through fundrasing but by highlighting the organization itself. I would be interested to see if non-profits actually do this and if it works? I think Horton would suggest that this would be a good idea since it would build relationships and reputation but he would question the desire of the public to respond since they might only be driven to donate if it could somehow profit themselves.
posted by Anonymous @ 10:18 PM
1 Comments:
At 11:47 AM, January 16, 2008,
Jessica said…
I really like your point comparing the lack of attention crises in Africa receive compared to the huge media attention surrounding the tsunami disaster. The media is definitely a driving force in creating PR for non-profit organizations. The media chooses which stories to publish and which to avoid. Comparing the tsunami and, say, the crisis in Darfur, the tsunami was a huge natural disaster that took place over about a one day period whereas the crisis in Darfur, which has claimed roughly 400,000 lives, has been a disaster spanning for or five years, with tension dating back further. The media, and its public, saw the quick affects of the devastation of the tsunami, the deaths, the missing people, destroyed homes and cities, which, like Hurricane Katrina, touched very close to home for people all around the world. The public saw the cause and affects of the disaster almost immediately, which helped create the media sensation and the international response. Plus, much of this was recorded on video, or captured in photos.
In comparison, while the crisis in Darfur has been a much longer devastation caused by humans, rather than nature, and has also claimed, and is still claiming many lives, it receives little public attention, especially within the United States, except for an article in the New York Times here and there. Why is this? First, as a public, our media has been unable to give us the instant, immediate portrayal of the causes and affects of this human rights disaster. The crisis has slowly developed over time, rather than erupt over night. Secondly, because of the restrictions placed on media within Sudan, reporters and cameramen have a difficult time coming in and getting the story/images to show the public. How are we supposed to respond if we can’t see what is going on?. I think, especially with these types of non-profits, while they do some fundraising, their main objective is already to highlight their organization as well as the crisis through websites, protests and rallies. Still, media attention remains little.
In another class, we were looking at the relationship between media and human rights crises like Darfur, trying to decide what, exactly, drives media. One hypothesis was that the government’s agenda, rather than the media’s agenda, helped push highlight one disaster/ story/ crisis over another. For example, how often do we hear our politicians talk about offering aid to countries hit by natural disasters? On the other hand, how often do we hear our politicians talk about offering aid to countries hit by human rights crises?
For PR, while it is useful to get media attention through fundraising and relationship building, it is also necessary to get attention from politicians, which, thus, could lead to more media attention. Who knows whether media drives politics, or vice versa, but both need to be pursued by non-profits to build PR.
Post a Comment
<< Home