Nowadays it is possible to find a few people who do not think that mass media affect, to some extent, public opinion. Admittedly, people find out about numerous events and phenomena from mass media. This is because many citizens do not attend political rallies and therefore rely on television, radio, newspapers and magazines for information. This assumption can be regarded as a basis for the agenda-setting theory. The theory’s major point is that mass media decide what is the most important news and what event (or person) “deserves” less attention. It is necessary to point out that the basic points of the agenda-setting theory are plausible, and the strength of the theory lies in the fact that media do shape public opinion to certain extent, but the weakness of the theory is that mass media’s impact is somewhat over-estimated. McCombs and Shaw have written about studies done on the coverage of election campaigns by the media in the 80s, and the percentage of what was actually aired. From the studies, it was found out that the percentage of what was aired was different from what was addressed during the political rally on the ground. In other words, what was actually emphasized during the rally was different from what was emphasized in the news (McCombs and Ghanem 2003, 70). Later, when the public was asked to comment on what they thought about a certain politician, majority of the answers reflected what was aired on television (McCombs and Ghanem 2003, 75). For example, a politician may allocate a huge percentage of his rally time on law and order agenda and give little attention on civil rights. A media house may reverse these priorities and concentrate on civil rights more than law and order. As a result, the public would think that this particular politician does not care about law and order (security), but cares more about civil rights. The writers have also emphasized on the salience of effect created by the media. Most of the upcoming politicians are usually unknown since they are simply not in the news. It was found that, new politicians are usually first mentioned in the newspapers and magazines, and then on television (McCombs and Ghanem 2003, 82). McCombs and Shaw claim that people “learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information”, in this way media are setting the “agenda” (1972, 176). Admittedly, this basic assumption of their theory is plausible since mass media do “sort” news and attach different levels of importance to each event and person. Thus, many people follow the set “agenda” and pay more attention to most important and less attention to least important. Besides, this principle works in the same way when it deals with political campaigns. One of the greatest strengths of the agenda-setting theory is that it presents “a vast wealth of research on the impact of mass media content on the public agenda” (McCombs and Ghanem 2003, 68). The theory reveals the major processes which influence public opinion. It is especially relevant when considering political campaigns since at present the “information in the mass media becomes the only contact many have with politics” (McCombs and Shaw 1972, 176). Thu