IntroductionIn 1922, Walter Lippmann suggested the very first idea of ​​agenda setting in his book "Public Opinion", and Bernard Cohen (1963) said, “The media can't say tell us what to think, but it's surprisingly good at telling us what to think.” These concepts assumed that with the limited capabilities and innate curiosity of human beings, most people rely on media institutions for information outside of their families, neighborhoods, and workplaces. Thus, media organizations have the priority to choose which information is of sufficient quality to be the most important, and which is not, and the information put forward by the media could be transferred to the public. To test this concept, McCombs and Shaw conducted the first empirical study. Since then, the fundamental theory of agenda setting has been established. After the first research was published, they retested the reliability and validity of this research and developed contingent conditions to improve and limit this theory. Then, many researchers became involved in this area, and the detail and extension of agenda-setting theory began. Weaver, Graber, McCombs, and Eyal (1976) extended the notion of agenda to the domains of politics and electoral campaigns. Since the 1980s, setting priorities has become increasingly complex. Within the framework of the theory of the origin of agenda setting, the analysis of the importance of the media agenda in relation to the public agenda, the process of agenda setting and The three-level agenda setting effect detailed this theory. Furthermore, the idea of ​​agenda-setting theory has been explored in several areas, including political advertising, consequences and subsequent public behavior, the international market, and more. In addition, t...... middle of paper ......tion. Flight. 43 Issue 2, p58. 10 p.m. Tan, Yue; Weaver, David H. (2010). Media bias, public opinion, and political liberalism from 1956 to 2004: a second-level study of agenda setting, Mass Communication & Society, Vol. 13 Number 4, p412-434, 23pColeman, R.; Wu, H.D. (2010). Proposing emotion as a dimension of defining the affective agenda: separating affect into two components and comparing their second-level effects, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(2):315-327Lei Guo; Hong Tien Vu; McCombs, Maxwell. (2012). An expanded perspective on the effects of agenda setting, exploring the third level of agenda setting, Revista de Comunicación. Flight. 11, p. 51-68. 18p.Zhang, Guoliang; Shao, Guosong; Bowman, Nicholas David. (2012). What is most important for my country is not for me: the determining effects on the agenda in China, communication research. Flight. 39 Number 5, p662-678. 5 p.m..