Intersubjectivity is a viewpoint of a phenomenon that shares its features with both subjectivity and objectivity. It is a condition that is personally practiced and experienced by two or more subjects. The interdependence is seen when two or more individuals split their opinions on a mainstream subject that most probably affects them. It trickles down to consensus on a subject that is under contention. An agreement that is reached at by people who define certain situations with the same meaning is intersubjectivity. The appropriate application of common sense to interpret and explain shared meanings in a socio-cultural setting captures intersubjectivity, and last but not least, the partially shared deviations of sense on a subject like dishonesty, social emotions and practical jokes. Lies give two different meanings to a reality of an authentic subject. This is because the circumstances are defined with two different meanings that points towards intersubjectivity.
Philosophical studies majorly centralize intersubjectivity in weighing of facts that are too close to decide on the best alternative. It also applies on ethical disciplines distinguishing the good from bad, right from wrong, virtues and vices etc. Economic deliberations may force the media to organize an attention-catching approach by emphasizing entertainment, emotional and personalized stories, sex, violence, gossip, etc. Economy determines the influence of advertisers and sponsors on the types of programs and stories that are being published. One is recommended to act in a certain way due to the nature of the outcomes of that situation. It considers whether it is favorable or unfavorable to the executor of the action or a third party. Our thoughts, notions and social relations are shaped sealed by our ability to build a consensus publicly. No one has a private opinion about something that will hold in the society if it is not communicated openly to influence people’s attitudes and perceptions. This is because language is communal but not private. The psychological energy that exists between two or more subjects connotes intersubjectivity. For example in a burial scene, all mourners are driven by the same emotions and feelings towards the deceased. Every persons mind is hooked on the dead person and all their psychological weight is embedded on it creating different reactions but with the solitary consequence.
It should be noted that when we talk on the subject of changes in agendas and their influences, we evaluate each selection to the previous one, in a way analogous to a longitudinal design. This might be termed a multiple cross-sectional design. That is,
Premise (Agenda Building); Deterioration conditions in the defense pointer will be associated with increased media coverage of this domain and in a relative decrease in the media coverage of the economic domain, and vice versa. (We cannot assume, however, what will happen in a situation in which both indicators face worsening conditions at the same time.)
Hypothesis (Agenda Setting); Enhancement in the intensity of media reporting of the security-peace sphere of influence will be connected with a boost in the quantity of survey respondents naming this issue as the country’s most important problem, and with a comparative reduction in the number of respondents naming the domestic-economic domain as the most important problem, and vice versa. For example,
The support for US president Bush dropped significantly in 1992 because an intense media focus on economic recession made voters shift from evaluating the president in terms of his handling of the Gulf war to evaluating his handling of national economy (Pan and Kosicky 1997; Hetherington 1996).
Opinions that are personal are vital to a person’s well being. A person should cling to his own opinions because self-respect is earned with opinions that define and classify him. According to an economist (Hirschman, 1989, p.76), “Vacillation, indifference, or weakly held opinions have long met with utmost contempt, while approval and admiration have been bestowed on firmness, fullness, and articulation of opinion.” In our contemporary society, the public sphere of influence is pinned down by the media. The media have the power to completely change people’s perceptions on a subject even though it might be biased to the parties. The assertions that the media has biased agendas in the current times are not a new phenomenon. Though conservatives have been the most voiced in recent years, laissez-faire have also been known to dispute that the media methodically conveys information in a manner that is advantageous to the opposition’s beliefs. This argument has also been practiced by mainstream media as they attempt to unearth the hidden truth about the media acting in Mephistophelean ways to sabotage reputations with the news they deliver. Discussing whether the media is biased is not the question. My disagreement is based on the fact that such void results do not necessarily exhibit the media as being “unbiased;” however, news content is created and presented in many forms that eventually the end result and meaning of the real and genuine information becomes distorted. An incomprehensible assortment of structural and ideological factors and individual actions at all levels of the media fabrication procedures add value to the final product.
Framing and Agenda-setting in the Economic Sphere.
Framing as a theory encompasses a context-sensitive account for shifts in political thinking and attitudes. Its assumption is built on the foundation that there are different influences and understanding of issues that is delivered in news reports by viewers (Scheufele and Tewksbury, 2000). It defines a self-motivated, circumstantially-bound procedure of opinion configuration in which the established methods of arrangement leaders public speaking and news media reporting shape the public opinion depends very much on how framing is defined, as suggested earlier, (Iyengar 1991; Scheufele 1999). An example is a study by de Vreese, Peter, and Semetko (2001) regarding the framing in news reports of the introduction of the Euro monetary unit. This study describes frames in expressions of magnitude concerned with the introduction of the Euro and the economic results of embracing it in various countries. Amount of disagreement seems to fit the dictionary explanation of an inherent characteristic or quality, whereas economic consequences seem to go beyond what would usually be perceived as an attribute of an issue. Framing and agenda setting has functional differences in the method of news production, processing of information and media effects. Despite the supremacy of solid, full, eloquent opinions, from the ancient days of unrestricted opinion research, people still have low quality opinions that can be easily altered with other strong ones. Opinions that are solid and firm have always been known to be informed, stable, and consistent and propped with conceptual principles and values (Hirschman, 1989). The universal conclusion surrounded by scholars is the fact that such opinions are uncommon in the public domain (Converse 1964, Zaller 1992). Entman (1993, p. 52) passes his opinion that ‘‘framing is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation about the issue in discussion.’’ Another scholar still stresses that ‘‘framing is the selection of a restricted number of thematically related attributes for inclusion on the media agenda when a particular object is discussed.’’ McCombs (1997, p. 37). Another example by Callaghan and Schnell (2001), deals with how the news media framed elite policy discussion about gun control. They defined frames as implied arguments including ‘‘guns deter crime,’’ ‘‘guns don’t kill, people do,’’ and ‘‘there is a constitutional right to bear arms.’’ These arguments seem to go beyond the commonly held meaning of attribute because they are more than just qualities of the issue.
Therefore, framing impacts connotes the behavioral or attitudinal upshots which are not caused by differences in the communicated opinions, but rather to dissimilarities in howa given section of information is being presented or framed in public dialogue. No matter what definition scholars use to exemplify framing, it is practically the most commonly used than the other models of communication in the past decade.
Priming and Agenda Setting in the Economic Field.
In the 1980s, the cognitive psychological concept of priming was one of the concepts mainly used in agenda-setting research. It refers to the effectiveness of the media in defining to people a prior concept which will be used it manipulate and understand subsequent information. As agenda-setting explains the significance of a subject’ priming on the other hand explains the reasons to why it is considered good or bad or if it is communicated accordingly. The media acts as a reference material on new programs or individuals’ credibility. The correlations of these two models and their theoretical explanations have not been exclusively and thoroughly developed, (Willnat (1997, p. 53). However their togetherness has solidified the base of theories of agenda-setting effects by exhibiting ‘‘a better understanding of how the mass media not only tell us ‘what to think about’ but also ‘what to think’ ’’ (Cohen, 1963). Agenda setting and priming relies attitude convenience theory by raising the importance of matters hence the effortlessness with which they can be reclaimed from memory when making political opinions.
The following theoretical examples describe the comparison and contrasting evidences that framing, priming and agenda setting displays in an economic basis. The three models are related and there are potential rapports among them in the mass media influence. Language is shaped by the brain. When an individual receives and processes information, there are a memory paths or activation tags which can be traced whenever issues that supplement, complement or raise questions arise. (Tulving and Watkins 1975). These traces are filled with new ideas that have been planted in the brain, therefore, it can manipulate the individual to make judgements and have perceptions about people with reference to the traces. For example in the priming effect hypothesis, an extension of agenda setting (Iyengar & Simon,1993; Scheufele, 2000),1 states that by making some issues more salient than others, the media influence “the standards by which governments, presidents, policies, and candidates for public office are judged” (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987, p. 63). These ideas had been theoretically discussed by other researchers but had never been put to force like in economics (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Taking Israel as a case study, through media coverage of these indicators, to public opinion, and finally, individuals’ voting intentions and aggregate voting behavior, the last two are rather new in agenda-setting and priming research, especially in research concentrating on political parties that is conducted in a natural setting. Analyses of four national election campaigns are included (1996, 1999, 2001, and 2003). This was a dramatic period, in which, among many other events, a prime minister was assassinated, the peace process with the Palestinians fell, the second Intifada, the Palestinian uprising, erupted and the national economy was tottering on the verge of collapsing. Although they rely heavily on the media, most Israelis have direct experience with the worsening security and economic real-world conditions. For example, almost 4,000 Israeli civilians and soldiers (out of about 6.6 million Israelis) were killed or injured in numerous terrorist attacks within Israel and in fighting against the Palestinians in the year preceding the 2003 election.
The media, alternatively, may get involved only casually and discontinuously in public affairs and even remain ill-mannered on the details. Those who have already made up their minds, the effects are destabilized. News media does not have the prowess to invent or cover up problems, but only modify the alertness, priorities and salience people fix to a set of problems. Not enough research has been done. Incomplete and inconclusive research in establishing an underlying connection between public salience and media coverage is lacking. Inadequate research in the dominion of modern forms of news media like social websites has not been fully integrated in the models to perceive the magnitude of influence it has on people. What is apparently detectable is that, "In an effort to survive, traditional newsrooms have embraced newsroom blogs as an alternative vehicle for news delivery."(Hamm, 1998). Until now, there is continuity in social-economic and this is between the users of modern forms of news media and those who don’t.
In summation, there are resemblances and interconnections between agenda setting, priming, and framing, but they are not matching approaches. Framing studies have, by a large magnitude outdone both agenda setting and priming studies in reputation throughout the past decade; although framing has not been properly conceptualized and defined like the other two seem to be.