Ted Koppel, a senior news analyst at National Public Radio, weighed in earlier this week on the decline of the agenda setting news source. Standing in front of some of the biggest minds in media at the 2011 Google Zeitgeist conference, Koppel said that instead of being fed what they need, consumers are fed the news they want. 

In the same Zeitgeist debate, Google co-founder Larry Page said Google News, an Internet news aggregator that relies on an algorithm instead of human editorial choice to rank stories, could do a better job.

“We as an Internet community, we have a responsibility to make those things work a lot better and get people focused on what are the real issues, what should you be thinking about,” the New York Times quotes Page as saying. “And I think we as a whole are not doing a good job of that at all.”

Agenda setting goes beyond coverage choice, deep into the molecules that make up a story: its words. When you address a mass audience, you choose between the best word and the one the most people will digest happily.

The choice is often somewhere in the middle and usually governed by a guide such as the Associated Press Stylebook. Is it health care or healthcare? E-mail or email? According to AP Style, the industry standard, journalists should use health care and email. Whether or not it matters to you, the goal is consistency and
readability; anyone, anywhere can open the publication and concentrate
on content instead of how many different ways a word is spelled.

But when you begin writing about the more complicated issues of our time, the style gets hazy, or nonexistent. Is it Deaf or deaf? Black or African American? Homosexual, gay or lesbian?

Once again, media outlets must choose between setting an agenda and what will be the most widely understood and accepted. Mexican American is clear-cut, but a person may identify as Chicano/a, Hispanic or Latino/a. None are widely accepted, and different people believe staunchly in the use of each. Which is right, and who decides?

All too often, the answer comes down to whatever is quickest and easiest for a time-strapped news outlet stretched thin by financial troubles. But as our ability to describe ourselves becomes more precise and complicated, the media must be agenda setters. “White” and “black” might have a place in a crime report, but when it comes to stories about diversity, they have to decide if there is a place for both “Mexican American” and “Chicana.”

Identity is taking over as the most important description factor among individuals, and news outlets must decide if and how that will be reflected in their work. For an issue as important as self identification, it is no longer OK to hide behind mainstream semantics.

Madison media outlets can play a special role in this debate. They are what you would call hyperlocal – firmly grounded in the minute details of life on and off the isthmus. When the people in front of a reporter feel closer than the pressures of mass media, there is much more room for progressivism.

That is especially relevant now, as the University of Wisconsin community once again picks up the conversation about the definition of diversity. Challenges from the Center for Equal Opportunity along with general unhappiness among marginalized students have created a time where we are forced to start talking and writing with words on which the AP Stylebook does not have a clear answer.

The media should jump at the chance to participate in the discussion via its word choice. We need agenda setting from all sides, both verbal and written.

Signe Brewster ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in life sciences communication. The Badger Herald is currently reviewing its style when it comes to topics of diversity. Send her an email if you would like to get involved.