[1][2] Media coverage has also been linked to the success of the rise of political parties and their ability to get their ideas on the agenda (agenda-setting).
According to a study by Schweickart et al., blogs, Twitter, speeches, and news releases are the most effective methods to affect political agenda setting.
Schweickart et al. found that around a president's midterm, congress is more likely to influence the presidential agenda using different media platforms.
These issues or causes may include: economics, taxes, foreign policy, global development, education, children and families, or healthcare.
[14] The Mabo decision by the High Court in 1992 which overturned previous laws about establishing native titles is an example of this.
The media is one of the biggest influences of political agenda setting based on what topics news outlets choose to cover.
This means, the test showed that media content can be held at least partly responsible for the rise of anti-immigrant parties in the Netherlands and the changing of the political agenda in this way.
[6] A similar study done by Julie Sevenans, Stefaan Walgrave & Gwendolyn Joanna Epping compares the behavior of politicians in comparison to the media on a global scale.
[3] This work showed that political agenda-setting effects most likely begin from the selective adoption on the cognitive, and individual level of MPs.
[3] In either case, politicians are interpreting that the public cares about major news stories and taking this into account when setting the political agenda.
George Edwards and Dan Wood conducted a time series analysis of presidential, mass media and congressional attention to five political issues: crime, education, health care, U.S.-Soviet relations, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
For example, when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, the United States responded by sending emergency disaster aid to the affected areas and several organizations set up donation funds.
After the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, national security and anti-terrorism efforts became a top priority for the government.
[18] In the elitist theory a main power elite dominates the entire agenda setting process to serve their own interests.
In order to retain power and control, the main elite works at keeping key issues off the agenda.
[18] Because social interests and issues have much impact on what is considered by the legislative committees and bureaucratic institutions, individuals do not benefit from agenda decisions.
When this happens and citizens from different regions, sectors, interests, backgrounds, or ethnicity all join to organize and discuss certain policies their agenda will change in a direction that switches their demands from power-holders to focus more on public goods.
[2] Elites may strategically opt for a non-centralized state in order to induce the citizens to not organize nationally and thus avert the political agenda effect.
The “escalation effect” contends that if citizens get together, it will force elites to form national resources to fight against them and maintain the political agenda the way they desire.
[19] The beginnings of the concept of the “impact agenda” can be traced to William Waldegrave's 1993 white paper “Realizing Our Potential”.
This idea has been heavily criticized by scientists for allowing non-scientists to pick winners and losers and for constraining researchers to only create an impact that is aligned with the government's political agenda.
[20] The order of events starts with a grievance, an expansion of interest supported by nongovernmental groups, and then an exertion of pressure onto decision makers.
Instead, supporters of the issues rely solely on their own ability to apply the right amount of pressure to ensure formal agenda status.