The Agenda setting theory evolved from the works of scholars like Walter Lippman (1922), Cohen (1963) and Lang and Lang (1966). However, the theory became more popular following McCombs and Shaw (1972) studies. This is because they were the first to explore the theory empirically. They did this by examining the role of the media in the US 1968 presidential election. Since then, the theory has been a handy framework in the study of political communication (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008; Walgrave & Van Aelst, 2006; Jennings & Miron, 2004).
The Agenda Setting Theory basically explains the process whereby the mass media highlight certain issues or problems as the most salient of the day (Murdock et al., 2003; Petts et al., 2001;
Iyengar and Kinder, 1987). It asserts that the media has the power to set agenda for the public and hold the media accountable for the pictures news audiences hold in their heads about certain issues or topics. It is the assumption of the theory that the level of attention the media gives to a topic or issues is directly relative to the level of importance the news audience attached to such issues or topic (McQuail, 2010, p.548). Through the agenda setting role of the media therefore, the media force attention to certain public issues (Ogbuoshi (2011, p.32). The media performs this function through the quantity or frequency of reportage; prominence given to the reports through headlines display, pictures and layout in newspapers, magazines, films, graphics or timing on radio and television; the degree of conflict generated in the reports; and cumulative media specific effects over time (Folarin, 1998).
This theory has however been extended to the study of political communication generally (Jones 2012; Bennett & Iyengar, 2008; Walgrave & Van Aelst, 2006; and Jennings & Miron, 2004) and three forms of agendas have often been studied and emphasized in most political communication in recent times. These include: the government agenda (which focused on the issues that were prioritized by the government), the news agenda (which focused on the issues that were
emphasized in the mass media), and the public agenda (which focused on the issues that were ranked as important by the public) (Manheim, 1994; Soroka, 2002; Jones, 2012). This study however focused on the government agenda. Although, there are three arms of government (the executive, legislature, and the Judiciary) that could set government agenda, this study specifically focus on presidential rhetorics as a measure of the broader Nigerian government agenda. Notably, the study chose to examine the presidential agenda instead of the parliamentary or judiciary agenda, because available scholarship demonstrated that the President is the
‘principal instrument’ for nationalizing policy debates (Schattschneider 1960, 14 as cited in Eshbaugh-Soha & Peake, 2005, p. 127). Future research effort may shift focus to the parliamentary and judiciary agenda and or as well, combine them with the presidential agenda on national development, but in this study of presidential rhetorics on national development, the researcher focused on the presidential agenda only for manageability and clearer analysis.
This decision is premised on the level of power vested on the presidency in relation to the two other arms of the government in Nigeria. No other political actor has the same capability as the President to set the points of focus for other political actors in any given country (Jones, 2012, p.7). Past research like Kingdon (1995) equally shares similar view about the office and power of the President. According to the author, the President ‘can single-handedly set the agendas, not only of people in the executive branch, but also of people in Congress and outside the government’ (p.23). Also, scholars like Edwards & Barrett (2000); Neusdadt (1960);
Baumgartner & Jones (1993), found that the presidential agenda have a significant influence on the congressional agenda; while Weaver, McCombs, & Shaw (2004); McCombs, Gilbert, & Eyal (1982); Wanta & Foote (1994) report that presidential agenda influence the news agenda; and Cohen (1997); Cohen (1995); Hill (1998) observe that presidential agenda equally influence the public agenda. Given such level of influence therefore, the presidential agenda is especially worthy of consideration in the realm of national development. In his dual role as
commander-in-chief and commander-in-chief executive officer, the President has more power to affect Nigerian national development than any other political actor.
Although, research on presidential agenda-setting on specific issues like foreign policies (Jones, 2012; Coe & Neumann, 2011b; Horvit, Schiffer & Wright, 2008; Peake and Eshbaugh-Soha, 2008; Soroka, 2003; Peake, 2001; Wood and Peake, 1998; Andrade & Young, 1996; Wanta &
Foote, 1994), and economy (Eshbaugh-Soha & Peake, 2005), abound, studies that has taken the visibility or invisibility of national development in presidential rhetorics into account appears to be lacking especially within Nigerian political climate. This is quite ironic because the country has always been regarded as underdeveloped nation since her independence in 1960 and had experimented with the military and civilian governments at different degree in the bid to drive the nation’s development. That the current study aimed at interrogating this aspect of seemingly age-long neglected aspect of agenda setting studies in Nigeria is quite seminal.
The choice of the Agenda Setting Theory for the current study is premised on its ability to provide theoretical explanation to the national development agenda setting function of Nigerian Presidents from 1999 to 2015. Specifically, the current study relied on the Agenda Setting Theory for theoretical foundation and in searching for answers to research questions 1 and 2 as seen in chapter one. The two research questions basically were aimed at ascertaining the level of visibility given to national development related issues in both the presidential Inaugural and Handover speeches respectively. It is the assumption of this study therefore that the Presidents would be judged to have set national development as agenda in their Inaugural and Handover speeches if national development was frequently and or repeatedly mentioned; and not to have set national development as agenda if the issues were not frequently and or not repeatedly brought to the front burner in the sampled speeches.
However, beyond setting development agenda, Normative Theory of Campaign puts a moral burden on the President to implement the content of his rhetorics and anything to the contrary
could render the speech false (as seen in correspondence theory of truth). This means, the President has the obligation to follow the moral of ‘‘decency,’’ which requires him to: avoid setting agenda on national development which he knowingly cannot pursue (realism criterion);
avoid setting agenda on national development which he does not intend to pursue (sincerity criterion); and avoid setting contradictory agenda on national development (consistency criterion). The only exceptions to these moral rules are the occurrence of unforeseen events (natural disaster, economic crisis, war, unanticipated shifts in public opinion) which allow a government to renege its moral obligation to drift away considerably from the earlier development agenda (Schedler 1998). And when such happens, it would be equally out of place for such President to claim to have pursued and or achieved such national development that he was forced by circumstance to jettison. To this end, this research put forward these questions:
Did Nigerian Presidents from 1999 to 2015 avoid setting agenda on national development issues they knew they could not pursue or achieve? Did they avoid setting agenda on national development issues they did not intend to achieve and did not achieve from 1999 to 2015? Did they avoid setting contradictory agenda on national development issues within the period under review? To effectively answer the above questions and more, this dissertation further turned to the classical theories of truth (Consistency, Coherence and Pragmatic Theories of Truth).
However, this study was limited to only two (Consistency and Correspondence) out of the three identified theories of Truth for insights as seen below. This is because they are the only ones that have direct bearing on the focus of this study.