Date: Monday November 10, 2003

Maxwell McCombs, a pioneer of the agenda-setting theory, is an example of a prolific scholar who through the years has continued to research and produce work in the agenda-setting area. The agenda setting theory states that the media can transfer the saliency of issues from their agenda to the public agenda. As such, the public's measure of the importance of different issues comes to reflect the media's emphasis on the saliency of some issues over others. Since his first publication of the agenda setting theory with Donald Shaw in 1972 (based on findings from the 1968 presidential election conducted in Chapel Hill, North Carolina), McCombs has continued to develop and explicate a broadening of the theory across theoretical domains and geographical and political contexts.

McCombs continues to be an example of a very successful and prolific scholar. He is currently the holder of the Jesse H. Jones Centennial Chair in Communication at the University of Texas. Preceding his position as journalism professor at the School of Journalism at UT Austin in 1985, McCombs was the John Ben snow Professor of Research at Syracuse University. He is also a professor on the associated faculty of Catholic University in Santiago, Chile, and has been a visiting professor annually at the University of Navarra in Spain since 1994. McCombs has authored several books, most recently The Two W's of Journalism (2003). He has also produced seminal publications in journals on the agenda setting theory, not only cowriting publications with American scholars, but also pushing the agenda setting theory to other countries such as Spain, Japan, and Mexico.

Unlike some other scholars who encompass a portfolio of diverse and dissimilar research interests in their books and publications, McCombs continues mainly to develop and publish work in the agenda setting theory and political communication. His work on this theory has taken him from the first level of agenda setting (issue agenda setting) to a development of contingent conditions that affect the ability of the media to set the agenda, to the sources that set the media content and finally to the second level of agenda setting, which deals with the ability of the media to transfer the attributes and characteristics of an object (e.g., a political candidate) or issue (e.g., the economy) from their agenda to the public agenda. McCombs has been highly influential in the expansion and theoretical broadening of each phase or point of new development of the agenda setting theory. From a cursory survey of the host of empirical work done in the agenda setting area, other scholars are also fascinated by the ability of the agenda setting theory to be proved in contexts outside the political arena and outside the United States. Over 360 publications to date have been published on the agenda setting theory.

Recently, I conducted an interview with McCombs on the subject of his continued productivity in the field of agenda setting. In this interview, I asked McCombs questions on his early years as a scholar, the beginning of his work on agenda setting, and his role in spreading the interest in this topic both nationally and internationally. I also ask him questions on his other academic interests, as well as the secrets to his academic craft and to continued productivity in the field.

Below is a transcript of this e-mail interview conducted on Friday, November 7, 2003.

Question-What led you to choose journalism as a profession? Was it popular at the time?

Answer: One of my English teachers in high school encouraged me to write for the school paper, and in my senior year I became the editor. That led to my decision to attend Tulane University, which has a good journalism program, and, initially, to pursue a career in journalism. But after several years as a reporter on the New Orleans Times-Picayune, I decided to return to graduate school at Stanford for my PhD.

Question-What dominant communication school and paradigms did you feel closest to? What impact did studying in Stanford have on shaping your approach to journalism?

Answer: The dominant perspective at Stanford was social psychology with an emphasis on media effects. Wilbur Schramm, whom Everett Rogers credits with founding communication research, was the head of the Institute for Communication Research there and spearheaded research ranging from TV effects on children to developmental communication projects for UNESCO.

It was at Stanford that I first read Lippmann's Public Opinion, the Erie County study of the 1940 US presidential election and the other classics in our field. In particular, my studies there laid the foundation for my long-term interest in political communication. My first study after graduation examined the impact of editorial endorsements in the Los Angeles Times on a 1966 election in California.

Question-After your first agenda-setting publication, what made you continue to examine the theory?

Answer-It was very clear from the high correlations in the Chapel Hill study that Don and I had "struck oil." Almost immediately, we began planning a large scale longitudinal study in Charlotte of the 1972 presidential election, the basis of our book, The Emergence of American Political Issues. That study in turn led to the year-long 1976 study reported in Media Agenda Setting in a Presidential Election: Issues, Images and Interest. By then many theoretical doors were open, and many others were beginning to study agenda-setting.

Question-Finding a trustworthy work partner is always a boon in working towards publications. How did you and Donald Shaw come to know each other and ultimately work together?

Answer: Don and I first met when I moved to Chapel Hill and joined the UNC journalism faculty in the fall of 1967. Don is a native of North Carolina and a UNC graduate, who had returned to the faculty there after receiving his PhD at Wisconsin. We hit it off immediately and conducted that initial agenda-setting study in the fall of 1968. We now have been research partners for more than 35 years. More importantly, Don is my best friend and was my best man when Betsy and I married in 1989.

Question-What, in your opinion, was responsible for the early take off of the agenda-setting theory among other scholars? Did you and Shaw have to do much networking and traveling to spread the theory?

Answer-Actually, we did very little traveling in the early years. That has come with the worldwide diffusion of agenda setting in recent decades. I believe that the simplicity of the agenda-setting metaphor, its steady empirical support, and its applicability to a wide range of mass communication questions account for the take off and continuing interest around the world.

Question-How did you come to expand the theory to include second level agenda setting or attribute agenda setting?

Answer-Our first book, The Emergence of American Political Issues, which was published in 1977, talks about an expanded version of the theory:

"Agenda setting as a concept is not limited to the correspondence between salience of topics for the media and the audience. We can also consider the saliency of various attributes of these objects (topics, issues, persons or whatever) reported in the media." [p.12]

Our 1976 election study, reported in Media Agenda Setting in a Presidential Election: Issues, Images and Interest, compared the attributes of Carter and Ford reported in the Chicago Tribune with the images of the two candidates among our Chicago panel of voters. About that time, Benton & Frazier also conducted their study of issue attributes. However, it was not until the early 1990s that scholars returned in force to attribute agenda-setting.

Other scholars from other countries (notably Toshio Takeshita from Japan, and Escobar from Spain) have also begun to examine the theory of agenda setting in their environments.

Question-To what extent do you see agenda setting as an international phenomenon and how have you helped to take the theory overseas?

Answer-Agenda-setting is very much an international phenomenon. Here is a passage from my forthcoming book:

A few years ago, a seminar in Taipei discussed this widespread international replication of media effects originally found in the United States and came to the conclusion that agenda-setting effects - the successful transfer of salience from the media agenda to the public agenda - occur wherever there is a reasonably open political system and a reasonably open media system. Arguably, there is no perfectly open political system in any country in the world today, no system where the principle of one person, one vote fully applies to every adult in the population. But the political systems of the United States, Spain and Taiwan - to cite some countries previously mentioned - are reasonably open in that elections really matter and actually determine the course of political history. Moreover, the vast majority of adults are eligible to participate in these elections. The media systems of these countries - or at least significant portions of them - also are open in that they are independent sources of news and political expression free from the domination of the government and major political parties. Where both of these conditions of openness exist, the public accepts considerable portions of the issue agenda put forward by the news media.

In recent years, of course, I have had the opportunity to travel and teach around the world and this undoubtedly has helped spread interest in agenda-setting. I also receive month after month a wide range of email messages from students and faculty in many countries about the agenda-setting theory.

This year a young scholar in Mexico, Issa Luna Pla, and I also published an anthology of key agenda-setting readings in Spanish that opens the Spanish-door to this line of research. Because most of the agenda-setting research, even that done in Spanish-speaking countries, has been published in English, it has been difficult for students in Latin America to move beyond the summary chapters in their text books. We have now broken through that barrier with our anthology, Agenda-Setting de los Medios de Comunicacion.

Question-Many scholars dabble in several different lines of research. You have continued to develop the agenda setting theory. Why did you make the decision to stick to one line of research? In your words, what merits have arisen in your life as a result of pursuing one dominant line of research and how do you still manage to be productive in the agenda setting field?

Answer-Two aspects of agenda-setting theory have been especially gratifying to me. The theory has continue to expand into new settings - for example, from 1st level agenda setting effects to the contingent conditions that mediate those effects, to the sources of the media agenda, to 2nd level agenda setting, etc. The theory continues to grow and in the process of this growth it has linked up with a wide variety of other concepts and theories, ranging from gatekeeping and status conferral to framing. In short, there has been a steady stream of intellectual excitement about agenda setting over all these years and many new questions to explore. This has given me great personal satisfaction and pleasure.

Although much of my work has focused on agenda setting, I also continue to have a strong interest in audience research and in the contemporary practice of journalism. For 10 years while I was at Syracuse University and involved in major agenda-setting projects, I also was director of the News Research Center of the American Newspaper Publishers Association. On the practice of journalism side my books include:

Davis Merritt and Maxwell McCombs, The Two W's of Journalism: The Why and What of Public Affairs Reporting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (2003).

Gerry Keir, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, Advanced Reporting: Beyond News Events. New York: Longman,1986. Paperback Edition: Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1991.

Question-You are well known and can go on based on the strength of your reputation. Yet, you continue to be hardworking and prolific. What has helped you to continue to be a productive scholar?

Answer-As noted above, I continue to be fascinated by the questions and puzzles brought to the fore by agenda setting theory.

Question-How do you balance the demands of a family and a demanding academic career?

Answer-I spend part of every day working because productive advances in research come only from steady attention. There are no instant discoveries. But I also spend part of every day with my family, and I particularly enjoy traveling with my family. At Thanksgiving this year we will be going to Madrid, for a conference, for visits with friends and colleagues, and for wonderful dinners. Long dinners together play a major part in our family life.

Question-What advice would you give the aspiring scholar who is embarking on the search for a communication area to explore?

Answer-Find an area that you think is important and that you find interesting enough to pursue for many years. At the outset of your career, you many want to explore several paths, but eventually you need to settle into one or two.

Question-Finally, what does the future hold for Maxwell McCombs? Are you currently working on any more books? Give us a sneak peak of what's in store for the future.

Question-My next book will be a comprehensive presentation of what we know about the agenda setting role of the media, a book that John Pavlik recently described as the Gray's Anatomy of agenda setting. I also have in mind a book about the evolution of news and news values across the 20th century, a topic that we explored a bit in my last contemporary trends seminar and that I also wrote about in the recently published The Two W's.