Cast your Vote

Posted 3/4/2026

Television serves not only as a form of entertainment but also as an influential social lens that helps to shape our value systems and the way we perceive importance in others. Studies performed in communications indicate that television is capable of framing the way that we think about the world, not only the images that we see but also the narratives behind those images. Media doesn’t necessarily tell us what to think, but it is stunningly successful at telling us what to think about.

When certain people or events are continuously reported on in the media, audiences develop a view of those individuals or events as being more significant; this activity is referred to as the agenda-setting function of the media – a well-established concept in the field of communications. Simply put, what the television chooses to show and what it does not show has a powerful yet subtle influence on the audience’s view of how important something is. 

Unlike social media, where content is primarily user-created, traditional television continues the selection of content that it chooses to broadcast. Producers and editors act as gatekeepers, deciding which news stories, guests, or celebrities receive the spotlight. Discerning importance from popularity is crucial in this case. 

A television personality can become popular by entertaining millions of people, but entertainment is not a definitive marker of importance in society. Many of the people who have led the way in creating great breakthroughs in science don’t receive the same media coverage as a popular television personality despite their significantly greater contributions to society. Several award platforms exist for actors: the Oscars, the Actors Awards (formerly the SAG Awards), the Golden Globes, and the Emmys, to name a few. This creates a cycle of importance through spectacle.

Beyond individual celebrity, television functions as a primary indicator of cultural relevance. Major televised events (such as elections and human rights disasters) have caused mass audiences around the world to attach significance to what they see. 

Although major television networks do not provide equal amounts of coverage to individuals, the choices of what networks choose to include in their newscasts will reinforce certain voices and, therefore, create a stronger cultural presence for the personalities included. 

A very well-studied example of how television created a cultural significance for one individual is Princess Diana after her tragic death in a car accident in 1997. After the accident, major television networks around the world provided constant commercial-free coverage of both her life and subsequent mourning from the global public. The amount of coverage she received created a cultural legacy and an ongoing interest in her compassion and humanitarian work, which existed beyond her royal status. 

Television did not simply report on Diana’s passing; it manufactured a parasocial relationship by saturating the public consciousness with her image. As a result, even people who did not personally know her felt some connection to her, because they saw her continually on their television sets. 

Due to the rise of competing screens, television now shares its power with a multitude of digital platforms. Yet, even with its influence distributed, it remains a primary engine for agenda-setting. While social media provides the volume, television often provides the validation—turning a viral moment into a milestone.