Content uploaded by Zeyar Oo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zeyar Oo on Jan 25, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Academic Editor: Andreu
Casero-Ripollés
Received: 23 December 2024
Revised: 12 January 2025
Accepted: 20 January 2025
Published: 25 January 2025
Citation: Oo, Z., & Dai, Y. (2025).
News Media Effects on Policy
Priorities: A Second-Level
Agenda-Setting Analysis of Belt and
Road Initiative (BRI) Projects in
Myanmar. Journalism and Media,6(1),
15. https://doi.org/10.3390/
journalmedia6010015
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Article
News Media Effects on Policy Priorities: A Second-Level
Agenda-Setting Analysis of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
Projects in Myanmar
Zeyar Oo 1and Yonghong Dai 2,*
1School of Media and Communication, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 3688, China;
2251442002@email.szu.edu.cn
2College of International Studies, Institute of Area and International Communication Studies and Centre for
China’s Overseas Interests, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 3688, China
*Correspondence: daiyh1999@126.com
Abstract: This study investigates the impact of the media’s secondary agenda-setting on
public perception and policy priorities regarding the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects
in Myanmar from to 2011–2024. Three hypotheses (Hs) were examined: H1 posits that
media coverage aligns with public and policy perspectives; H2 proposes that media empha-
sis on specific attributes influences their prominence in public opinion and policymaking;
and H3 suggests that public opinion mediates the relationship between media coverage
and policy priorities, indicating an indirect media influence on policymaking. This study
employed a cross-sectional research design, utilizing both quantitative content analysis and
survey methodologies. The content comprises the analysis of two news outlets’ coverage
(n= 144), surveys with 385 respondents (n= 385), and in-depth interviews with 30 partici-
pants (n= 30), and the findings revealed a significant positive correlation between media
coverage and public opinion and policy priorities (r = 0.86, r = 0.81, respectively). SEM
path analysis reveals that the media agenda indirectly shapes the policy agenda through
the public agenda, with an indirect effect path coefficient of 0.718, highlighting the media’s
role in policymaking processes. This is evidenced by a significant correlation between
media coverage and public opinion (p< 0.05), and a strong direct association between
public opinion and policy priorities (p< 0.05). This study extends the agenda-setting theory
by empirically demonstrating the media’s indirect effect on policy formation in global
infrastructure projects within a developing Southeast Asian country. Future studies should
examine the evolution of media patterns across different administrations, including the
current one. The results also suggest examining the broader media portrayal of governance
issues and conducting extensive research on the media’s impact on public opinion.
Keywords: agenda-setting theory; media agenda; public agenda; policy agenda; the BRI
projects; Myanmar
1. Introduction
Since McCombs and Shaw’s foundational research on the 1972 U.S. presidential elec-
tion, agenda-setting theory has become a pivotal area of study in communication and
journalism. It is widely recognized that, in the age of mass media, agenda-setting serves as
a powerful mechanism for shaping public opinion through the media’s focused coverage
of certain topics. Over time, the concept of agenda-setting has evolved, broadening from its
initial focus on media effects on public perception (first level) to including the salience of
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6010015
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 2 of 21
specific attributes associated with issues or objects (second level) and, in some cases, its in-
fluences on policy attitudes among political elites. Over time, the concept of agenda-setting
has evolved, broadening from its initial focus on media effects on public perception (first
level) to the salience of specific attributes associated with issues or objects (second level).
Second-level agenda-setting theory provides a framework to examine how media attributes
shape public agenda, which, in turn, can influence the policy agenda. Scholars have in-
creasingly examined the relationship between media coverage and the policy agendas of
governments, political figures, and interest groups (Cook et al.,1983;Jamieson & Van Belle,
2018;Protess & McCombs,2016;Soroka,2002). However, much of this research has focused
on political subjects such as electoral campaigns and candidate representations.
This study shifts its focus from traditional political topics by investigating a major
international economic project, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Specifically, it explored
the role of media coverage in shaping public opinion and influencing policy priorities in
Myanmar, a key participant in the BRI. This study seeks to understand how the media’s
portrayal of the BRI in Myanmar is linked to the country’s government’s policy decisions,
with public opinion acting as the mediating factor. On the other hand, this study explores
the media’s agenda-setting impact on policy formation, emphasizing its indirect effect on
public opinion and subsequent policy priorities. Utilizing second-level agenda-setting
theory, this study investigates how media attributes influence public perception and poli-
cymaking. This study concentrates on the media’s impact on public opinion and policy
development, excluding reciprocal influences between the government and media and the
role of journalists.
The research findings align with Rogers et al.’s (1993) assertion that media, public, and
policy agendas are interconnected, providing fresh empirical evidence of the agenda-setting
process (Rogers et al.,1993) in the context of global infrastructure development projects.
Therefore, this study explores the agenda-setting effects by investigating how the media
influences public opinion regarding BRI-related issues and subsequently impacts the policy
agenda. Unlike previous studies on agenda-setting effects, this study employed a novel
methodological approach to examine the interrelationships between media, public, and
policy agendas concerning global infrastructure development initiatives (Oo & Dai,2024).
The core concept of this study originates from unexpected policy shifts in Myanmar’s
handling of Chinese megaprojects, notably the 2011 suspension of the Myitsone Dam project
during the Thein Sein-led government. It is widely believed that such policy changes were
influenced by public sentiment shaped by the media, following its deregulation in 2011.
Communication from former President Thein Sein to parliament concerning the suspension
of the Myitsone Dam project has demonstrated that the decision to halt the project was
influenced by public opinion. This correspondence confirms that the change in policy
regarding the suspension of the Myitsone Dam was a result of sentiment expressed by the
people (Oo et al.,2024). These events prompted subsequent Myanmar administrations to
progressively alter their stance on foreign investments, particularly those originating in
China, as evidenced by the 2017 reassessment of the Kyaukphyu Port Project. These events
coincided with the relaxation of Myanmar’s media restrictions introduced in 2011, leading
some domestic stakeholders to surmise that external factors, notably media influence,
shaped public opinion. Consequently, this necessitated an examination of whether media
influence, through its impact on public perception, affected policy priorities regarding
foreign investments, specifically China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects in Myanmar
(Oo & Dai,2024). Concerning this issue, existing research has shown that second-level
agenda-setting theory is the most suitable framework for examining the interconnections
between media, public, and policy agendas.
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 3 of 21
Despite extensive global research on agenda-setting effects (Ireri,2009;Kim et al.,2012;
M. McCombs et al.,1997;Takeshita,1993), there remains a notable gap in its application
in Myanmar, particularly in the context of the BRI. Oo and Dai (2024) emphasized the
necessity for future research to investigate the media’s influence on policy priorities and
the interplay between media, public, and policy agendas concerning China’s BRI projects in
Myanmar (Oo & Dai,2024). While a significant body of research has examined BRI projects
in Myanmar from various disciplinary angles (Gyi,2019;Htwe,2020;Jamilah & Novita,
2019;Khin Kyi & Xiang,2020;Richard et al.,2022), there is a distinct lack of attention to the
media’s role in shaping policy through agenda-setting. Given that the BRI aims to enhance
connectivity and promote development across Asia, Europe, and Africa (Schulhof et al.,
2022), coupled with limited research on media effects related to this initiative in Southeast
Asia, this study is considered valuable. Conversely, this study also addresses a significant
gap in the literature, given that the BRI represents the most extensive infrastructure project
in history, with investments surpassing USD 8000 billion (Hurley et al.,2019).
Overall, this study contributes to the existing knowledge of agenda-setting theory and
its applicability to global infrastructure development projects in Myanmar by examining
the role of the media in the formation of the public agenda and policy decision-making.
Consequently, the findings may also be beneficial for policymakers to gain a more compre-
hensive understanding of not only developing countries’ involvement in the BRI but also
the significant role of news media in shaping public opinion that facilitates the successful
implementation of BRI projects.
2. Second-Level Agenda Setting
This study focuses on the second-level agenda-setting effects of the media, particularly
the relationship between media coverage and policy priorities in Myanmar, with respect
to BRI projects and public opinion as the intervening variables. Media have the power
to influence public opinion by directing attention to or away from an event, issue, or
individual. As a result, certain topics or figures may be prioritized over others, depending
on how they are perceived as relevant or significant. Therefore, the media have an agenda-
setting function, and the results of this have a profound impact on the individual, political,
economic, social, and intellectual landscapes of a nation (Shaw,1979).
First-level agenda-setting focuses on the salience of issues or objects, whereas second-
level agenda-setting focuses on the salience of the specific attributes associated with issues
or objects. The first level informs the audience what to think about (issues salience) and
the second level tells them how to think about it (attribute salience). In other words,
the media’s role in shaping what people think and feel is greater than in deciding what
issues to consider (M. E. McCombs & Shaw,1972). Research has demonstrated that media
can shape public opinion by emphasizing certain aspects of an issue while downplaying
others, thus providing a particular perspective. The concept of second-level agenda-setting
suggests that media coverage can direct audience attention towards the specific features
of an issue, thereby influencing how it is perceived (Weaver et al.,2004). At the second
level, each issue or object is presented with a range of attributes that help explain the
entire object to the audience (Carroll & McCombs,2003;Craft & Wanta,2004). The media
also selects these attributes to shape public focus and interpretation, whether they are
related to political figures, policy matters, or commercial brands (M. McCombs,1995).
Generally, the second level of agenda-setting is the most sensitive to substantive and
affective attributes (M. McCombs et al.,1997) as well as cognitive attributes (Golan &
Wanta,2001) in determining the public evaluations of candidates and issues.
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 4 of 21
In recent years, scholars have turned their attention to examining the correlation
between the public perception of objects or issues and their portrayal in media coverage
as well as their influence on policymaking. Studies have shown the growing influence of
agenda-setting, wherein media representation, public opinion, and policy attitudes are
closely linked (Rogers et al.,1993). Early empirical insights into media influence on both
the public and policymakers were provided by Cook et al. (1983) in their study “Media and
Agenda Setting: effects on the public, interest group leaders, policymakers, and policy”.
Previous studies have demonstrated the influence of media coverage on policy decisions,
suggesting that media’s ability to set an agenda significantly shapes public sentiment and
policy formulation. Policymakers frequently rely on media outlets to gauge public opinion
and to inform their decision-making processes. Soroka (2002) builds on this to examine
agenda-setting dynamics in Canada from 1985 to 1995 (Soroka,2002). His study showed
that various issues (inflation, environmental concerns, and national debt) follow different
agenda-setting patterns depending on exposure to real-world events and media coverage.
Soroka (2002) found that media, public opinion, and policymakers are differently connected
to one another depending on the issue, which demonstrates how media coverage influences
public discourse and policy choices differently across issues.
Tan and Weaver (2010) also studied the effect of media bias on the formation of public
opinion and policy liberalism in the U.S. between 1956 and 2004 (Tan & Weaver,2010).
They find a correlation between media bias, shifts in public opinion, and subsequent policy
outcomes. The media’s role in shaping policy debates is also emphasized. Wolfe et al.
(2013) extended this line of research by investigating the complexities of media policy
relationships (Wolfe et al.,2013). Although they acknowledge the gap between media and
policy agenda-setting studies, they also state that media can influence policy through issue
attributes, coverage prominence, and interaction between traditional and digital media.
Taken together, these investigations highlight the pivotal influence of the media in
molding public sentiment and governmental priorities through second-level agenda-setting
effects. This also illustrates how the prominence of issue attributes guides societal discourse
on matters related to policy concerns.
3. The BRI Projects in Myanmar
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), introduced by President Xi Jinping in 2013, com-
prises two main components, namely the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century
Maritime Silk Road (Malik,2020), both aimed at enhancing the connectivity between China
and ASEAN nations. This initiative was originally called the One Belt One Road (OBOR)
initiative and has since been referred to as the BRI. The strategic location between China and
India made Myanmar a critical participant, presenting itself as a vital link between South
and Southeast Asia. Myanmar saw a huge increase in Chinese investment, particularly
through the China–Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) proposed in 2007. For instance,
capital inflows grew from USD 481 million to USD 1.3 billion between 2017 and 2018
(Kobayashi & King,2022). In 2020, 33 agreements related to the CMEC were signed when
President Xi Jinping visited Myanmar, marking 70 years of diplomatic relations (Li,2020).
The scale of these developments has led scholars and media to provide divergent
views on the BRI’s impact on Myanmar. However, scholars, such as Lenskyi (2020) and
Htwe (2020) argue for economic benefits, including better infrastructure and enhanced
regional connectivity. However, there are concerns regarding environmental degradation,
debt sustainability, and geopolitical risks (Kobayashi & King,2022). Debates have been
fueled by these differing views on the broader implications of the BRI for Myanmar and
the region. For example, Lenskyi (2020) argues that CMEC’s successful implementation
would enable China to expand its strategic influence in the Indo-Pacific region and help
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 5 of 21
Myanmar’s economic development (Lenskyi,2020). According to Htwe (2020), job creation
and regional integration bring benefits, but public concern continues to be generated by
long-term risks related to debt and environmental damage (Htwe,2020).
Kobayashi and King (2022), however, take a more negative view of the social and
environmental impact of BRI projects in Myanmar, namely land appropriation, displace-
ment of livelihoods, and the rise in labor migration (Kobayashi & King,2022). Shattuck
(2018) also critiques China’s investments, which they argue have become dependent on
geopolitical interests. These concerns have also been exacerbated by media coverage, which
often draws attention to factors such as rising debt, environmental degradation, and lack
of transparency in how projects are carried out (Shattuck,2018). Oo et al. (2024) found
that local media often focuses on the public fear of land grabs, the unequal distribution
of benefits, and potential job losses to amplify the broader fear of China’s influence in
Myanmar (Oo et al.,2024). Several scholars have proposed measures to improve the imple-
mentation and perception of the BRI projects in Myanmar. Taidong (2019) recommends
that environmental and social impacts be thoroughly assessed, financing options be di-
versified, and transparency be increased (Taidong,2019). Teo et al. (2019) suggested that
with concerted policy actions between China and host countries, the BRI could set global
norms for managing environmental impacts (Teo et al.,2019). However, public opinion in
Myanmar remains divided. As Khin Kyi and Xiang (2020) note, many Myanmar still see
the BRI as an opportunity to develop the economy, create jobs, improve infrastructure, and
strengthen relations with China (Khin Kyi & Xiang,2020).
This study identified four primary issues (groups) related to BRI projects in Myanmar:
“economic impact and Chinese loans”, “environmental and social impact”, “governance,
transparency and coordination”, and “geopolitical and strategic considerations.”
4. Theoretical Framework
Traditionally, agenda-setting models in media studies have focused on the relationship
between media coverage and public sentiment, often without directly addressing policy for-
mation (M. McCombs,1997). Although much research has concentrated on how media and
public agendas interact, there is considerable evidence that both public and media agendas
also influence policy development. Specifically, agenda-setting theory encompasses three
interconnected processes: media, public, and policy agendas (Dearing & Rogers,1996;
Rogers & Dearing,1988). Media agenda-setting focuses on the factors that determine issue
selection within the media, treating the media’s issue agenda as the dependent variable. By
contrast, public agenda-setting examines how media coverage shapes the public’s percep-
tions of issue importance, while policy agenda-setting explores the extent to which media
and public opinion influence government priorities (Rogers et al.,1993). Collectively, these
three components form the core structure of the agenda-setting theory. Notably, Dearing
and Rogers (1996) and Rogers and Dearing (1988) observed that although most research
highlights the causal relationship between the media and the public agenda, media and
public agendas can also impact policy (Dearing & Rogers,1996;Rogers & Dearing,1988).
Kosicki (1993) argues that studying these three dimensions of agenda-setting in iso-
lation provides an incomplete understanding of media influence (Kosicki,1993). Instead,
he proposes an integrated approach that captures the dynamic interplay between media
sources, journalists, the public, and policymakers. By connecting these perspectives, a more
comprehensive model of media influence emerged. Building on Kosicki’s integrated model,
this study adopted a process-based agenda-setting framework, breaking the process into
three phases: inputs, processes, and outcomes. Media content, as input, sets the public
agenda. The process phase involves the media shaping public opinion by emphasizing
specific issues that subsequently influence the policy agenda. However, in some cases,
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 6 of 21
the media and policy agendas are aligned (Entman,1993), whereas in others, they are
not. Within this framework, policymakers often respond to media-driven public opinion,
whereas some resist external influence (Perse & Lambe,2016). In many cases, policymakers
also use the media’s agenda as a proxy for public opinion, assuming that the media’s
portrayals of what is happening in society (or the world) reflect the public’s concerns
(
Van Aelst,2014
). Consequently, the media help define policymakers’ perceptions of which
problems are most pressing. This means that the media’s capacity to focus on certain topics
by highlighting the salience of issue attributes has a large impact on which issues become
part of the government’s policy agenda. Media goes beyond simply disseminating informa-
tion and leads to public perceptions of the importance of an issue (Iyengar & Kinder,2010).
The media not only provides factual information but also helps to set the public perception
of issue importance.
Consequently, the media’s emphasis on certain aspects of issues indirectly shapes
policy decisions by influencing public opinion. This study is based on the premise that the
media shapes policy priorities surrounding the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects in
Myanmar by influencing public discourse. Using second-level agenda-setting theory, this
research treats BRI projects as a central issue, analyzing various issue attributes to examine
the relationships and potential causal links between media, public, and policy agendas.
Figure 1illustrates the conceptual model of the extended agenda-setting framework
derived from second-level agenda setting. The blue dashed lines connect the media agenda
(MA), public agenda (PA), and policy agenda (PAD), highlighting the correlations between
media coverage, public opinion, and policymaking. The left-black arrow from MA to
PA shows the effect of media on public opinion, whereas the straight arrow from PA to
PAD indicates how public opinion shapes policymakers’ decisions. The right arrow from
MA to PAD is slightly blurred, reflecting that media attributes may align with policy
considerations, suggesting a potential direct influence of media on policymaking likely to
happen. The central premise of this conceptual model is that MA exerts an indirect influence
on PAD through its effect on PA, which in turn affects PAD. The indirect relationship
between MA and PAD mediated by PA is illustrated by the black arrows in the model.
Journal. Media 2025, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 22
more comprehensive model of media influence emerged. Building on Kosicki’s integrated
model, this study adopted a process-based agenda-seing framework, breaking the pro-
cess into three phases: inputs, processes, and outcomes. Media content, as input, sets the
public agenda. The process phase involves the media shaping public opinion by empha-
sizing specific issues that subsequently influence the policy agenda. However, in some
cases, the media and policy agendas are aligned (Entman, 1993), whereas in others, they
are not. Within this framework, policymakers often respond to media-driven public opin-
ion, whereas some resist external influence (Perse & Lambe, 2016). In many cases, policy-
makers also use the media’s agenda as a proxy for public opinion, assuming that the me-
dia’s portrayals of what is happening in society (or the world) reflect the public’s concerns
(Van Aelst, 2014). Consequently, the media help define policymakers’ perceptions of
which problems are most pressing. This means that the media’s capacity to focus on cer-
tain topics by highlighting the salience of issue aributes has a large impact on which
issues become part of the government’s policy agenda. Media goes beyond simply dis-
seminating information and leads to public perceptions of the importance of an issue
(Iyengar & Kinder, 2010). The media not only provides factual information but also helps
to set the public perception of issue importance.
Consequently, the media’s emphasis on certain aspects of issues indirectly shapes
policy decisions by influencing public opinion. This study is based on the premise that the
media shapes policy priorities surrounding the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects in
Myanmar by influencing public discourse. Using second-level agenda-seing theory, this
research treats BRI projects as a central issue, analyzing various issue aributes to examine
the relationships and potential causal links between media, public, and policy agendas.
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model of the extended agenda-seing framework
derived from second-level agenda seing. The blue dashed lines connect the media
agenda (MA), public agenda (PA), and policy agenda (PAD), highlighting the correlations
between media coverage, public opinion, and policymaking. The left-black arrow from
MA to PA shows the effect of media on public opinion, whereas the straight arrow from
PA to PAD indicates how public opinion shapes policymakers’ decisions. The right arrow
from MA to PAD is slightly blurred, reflecting that media aributes may align with policy
considerations, suggesting a potential direct influence of media on policymaking likely to
happen. The central premise of this conceptual model is that MA exerts an indirect influ-
ence on PAD through its effect on PA, which in turn affects PAD. The indirect relationship
between MA and PAD mediated by PA is illustrated by the black arrows in the model.
Figure 1. The conceptual model of the extended agenda-seing effects.
Although the media have considerable power in shaping public and policy agendas,
its influence has limitations. To enter the public agenda, an issue must resonate with the
Media Agenda
Public Agenda Policy Agenda
Figure 1. The conceptual model of the extended agenda-setting effects.
Although the media have considerable power in shaping public and policy agendas, its
influence has limitations. To enter the public agenda, an issue must resonate with the public
regardless of the amount of media coverage (M. McCombs,1997). Although the media can
highlight certain issues or topics, the public’s interpretation ultimately determines their
significance. However, continuous media attention to specific issues can gradually increase
their importance in public discourse (Carroll & McCombs,2003), which may then influence
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 7 of 21
policy decisions. Generally, this sequence commences with news outlets highlighting a
specific matter by emphasizing certain aspects that subsequently influences and molds
public sentiment over time. As public opinion crystallizes, these issues can make their
way into policy agendas. Thus, such attributive content is most effective when the issue
attributes match the public interpretation of the media’s coverage. In this context, the
second-level agenda-setting approach is valuable for analyzing how media outlets portray
the attributes of BRI initiatives in Myanmar.
This study aimed to compare and evaluate the mediating hypotheses linked to the
influence of the media on both public perception and policy priorities. In addition, the
study employs second-level agenda-setting theory intended to examine the impact of media
coverage on public opinion and policy priorities. Therefore, it has excluded broader aspects
beyond the agenda-setting framework, such as Myanmar’s media landscape, governmental
influence on the media, and journalists’ diverse roles.
5. Hypotheses
This study encompasses two primary aims: first, to analyze the relationship between
media, public, and policy agendas concerning BRI initiatives in Myanmar, and second, to
explore how the media agenda influences policy agenda through the intermediary of public
opinion. This study employs a second-level agenda-setting framework to investigate this
relationship and proposes three hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1. The issues attributed to the BRI projects in Myanmar highlighted in media coverage
are perceived by the populace and emphasized by Myanmar policymakers.
According to M. E. McCombs and Shaw (1972), the media not only influences the
subjects of public discourse, known as first-level agenda setting but also shapes the manner
in which individuals conceptualize these issues, referred to as second-level agenda setting,
through the emphasis placed on specific attributes of the issues (M. E. McCombs & Shaw,
1972). Acting on seminal work in agenda-setting theory, this study locates frames within
media coverage that highlight these attributes compared with public perceptions and policy
priorities. Drawing from Entman’s (1993) framing concept, the media emphasizes public
attention on specific aspects of issues (Entman,1993), which in turn influences both public
discourse and the policy agenda (Rogers & Dearing,1988).
Hypothesis 2. There is a positive correlation between issue attributes in media coverage and the
salience of public opinion and policy priorities regarding BRI projects in Myanmar.
The hypotheses presented here move forward from the idea that the media influences
public and policy priorities in that it assigns different weights to issue attributes. This
hypothesis is tested by examining the relationship between media coverage, public opinion,
and policy priorities on BRI project-related issues, focusing on the aspects of the issue
emphasized by the media on BRI projects in Myanmar. This hypothesis also examines the
relationship between issue attributes in the media and public and policy agendas (Tan &
Weaver,2010) and the role of media in political discourse (Wanta et al.,2004).
Hypothesis 3. The media agenda of news outlets exerts an influence on the policy agenda of the
Burmese government regarding BRI projects, mediated through the public agenda.
This hypothesis investigates the directionality of the causal link between media cover-
age and policy priorities mediated by public opinion on BRI projects in Myanmar. Second-
level agenda-setting theory states that media not only influences public perceptions but
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 8 of 21
also indirectly affects policymaking by impacting public opinion that applies pressure on
policymakers (Dearing & Rogers,1996). Therefore, this study examines the indirect effect of
the news media on Myanmar’s policy priorities regarding BRI initiatives. It contends that
coverage in media outlets generates public pressure, which in turn prompts policymakers
to focus on issues highlighted by the media (Soroka,2002).
6. Materials and Methods
In the absence of survey records, such as Gallup’s poll in the United States, and the
lack of archived data from the Myanmar government on foreign investments, including
BRI projects, this study employed a cross-sectional design, ensuring data validity and
reliability across three distinct data collection methods: content analysis of the media
agenda (MA), surveys of the public agenda (PA), and in-depth interviews with the policy
agenda (PAD) (Fakis et al.,2014;Frels & Onwuegbuzie,2013;Indulska et al.,2012;White
et al.,2006). In terms of methodology, this research utilized quantitative content analysis
to gather and quantify data from news articles and in-depth interviews. Additionally, an
online survey was conducted to obtain information from the respondents. Based on these
hypotheses, MA was the independent variable, PA was the mediating variable, and PAD
was the dependent variable.
The key challenge of the research design was to ensure the alignment of the three data
collection methods. All content analyses, online surveys, and in-depth interviews were
conducted using carefully defined contexts, timeframes, demographics, and questionnaires.
The major difficulty in this study was the lack of time-series data on public attitudes and
policy priorities related to the BRI projects in Myanmar. Another aspect of this research
involves employing qualitative interview data for quantitative content analysis, with the
aim of determining the media agenda. This resulted in alignment with existing sectional
information, ensuring that the sectional data corresponded with the aims of the study.
Content analysis was employed to collect data on the media agenda from two international
news sources, spanning 2011 to 2024. The survey and interview questionnaires were
carefully designed to ensure alignment with the context used in the content analysis and to
collect reliable data for both public and policy agendas. For example, using the surveys, we
asked people, ‘What were the main concerns about the BRI projects over the years?’ We also
asked interview participants: ‘What do you think are the most important policy priorities
of the successive governments with regard to the BRI projects between 2011 and 2024?’
Descriptive methods were used to assess the degree of alignment between MA, PA,
and PAD, whereas inferential statistical methods were used to explore correlations between
agendas (Myers & Sirois,2014). In addition, structural equation modeling (SEM) with path
analysis was conducted to assess the indirect effects of MA on PAD mediated by PA and the
causal relationship between them (Kline,2018). Given previous studies (Gyi,2019;Htwe,
2020;Jamilah & Novita,2019;Khin Kyi & Xiang,2020;Richard et al.,2022), particularly in
the recent study on media effects (Oo & Dai,2024), the study defines ten specific attributes
as the substantive attributes of the four core issues related to BRI projects: “debt concern”,
“economic development”, “infrastructure development”, “environmental concern”, “local
concern”, “lack of transparency”, “lack of coordination”, “Chinese interest”, “regional
connectivity”, and “Paukphaw relations”.
These attributes were mapped to four key issues (groups): “economic impact and Chi-
nese loan”, “environmental and social impact”, “governance, transparency and coordina-
tion”, and “geopolitical and strategic considerations”. Given that this was a cross-sectional
study, ensuring consistency across the three agendas was essential. Core questions across
surveys and interviews focused on themes such as: “What concerns or impresses you about
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 9 of 21
the BRI projects being implemented in Myanmar?” and “How do you evaluate the progress
of BRI project implementation in Myanmar?”
Employing different sample sizes for MA (n= 144), PA (n= 385), and PAD (n= 30), this
study employed a pairwise Spearman’s rho analysis to examine the strength and direction
of the linear relationship between the continuous variables with the value of correlation
coefficient “r” (Lee Rodgers & Nicewander,1988). The value of r ranges between -1 and 1,
and r = 1 indicates “a perfect positive linear relationship”, while r =
−
1 is considered “a
perfect negative linear relationship” and r = 0 represents “no linear relationship between
the variables” (Cohen,2013).
The study also used SEM path analysis to examine the direct and indirect structural
relationships between the three agendas (MA, PA, and PAD). In the analysis, three agendas
(MA, PA, and PAD) were treated as observed variables, ten attributes were treated as
manifest variables, and four issues were created as latent variables. In the path analysis,
model efficacy was assessed using several key metrics. A chi-square (
χ2
) test compares
the observed to expected covariance matrices, and an adequate fit is indicated when the
p-value is >0.05; however, the chi-square test is sensitive to the sample size (Kline,2018).
Model fit, according to the population and the model complexity, was evaluated using the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with values smaller than 0.05, which
were considered excellent (Steiger,1990). The proposed model was compared to a null
model using the comparative fit index (CFI), which is interpreted as adequate with values
higher than 0.95; smaller samples require higher values (Bentler,1990). This structure takes
into account model complexity, with scores above 0.95 being strong (Tucker & Lewis,1973).
The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of discrepancies between the observed
and predicted correlation measure values was below 0.08, indicating an adequate fit. In the
overall analysis, the media agenda (MA) functions as an independent variable (IV), while
the public agenda (PA) serves as both an IV and a dependent variable (DV), and the policy
agenda is utilized as a DV. R software (version 4.3.1) with RStudio (version 2024.09.1+394)
as the integrated development environment was used for the analysis. The dataset used
for this study, which forms the basis of all analyses, is provided in the Supplementary
Materials (S1).
6.1. Content Analysis
Quantitative content analysis is a venerable method in communication research that
enables us to quantify what people say in communication in systematic ways that es-
sentially utilize situations inherent to explicit content (De Sola Pool & Berelson,1952).
Krippendorff (1989) states that it “enables to reveal previously unsuspected patterns in
unstructured text on a large scale by converting qualitative elements of the analysis into
units of numerical data necessary for the replication and validation of claims made about
properties of discursive contexts” (Krippendorff,1989).
We chose Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of America (VOA) for two main reasons:
large-scale global dissemination with high credibility among Myanmar audiences and their
permanent focus on the situation in Burma, including political and economic aspects, as
well as China’s investments. Established in 1996, RFA has millions of followers via its social
media channels on Facebook, while listeners can access news via satellite broadcasting,
shortwave radio, and the terrestrial web in nine languages. “VOA” is an international
broadcaster seen by a global audience of some 236 million people in more than 40 language
services (including Burmese).
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 10 of 21
These media outlets could wield influence among the vast population and further
cultivate regional opinion. This study focused on news coverage related to key Chinese
BRI projects, including the “China–Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC)”, the “Kyauk-
phyu deep-sea port”, the “Special Economic Zones (SEZs)”, and other major infrastructure
projects between “2011 and 2024”. The units of analysis consisted of “editorials, analyses,
and review articles” from both the RFA and VOA. A total of 144 articles were randomly
selected for analysis, comprising 71 from RFA and 73 from VOA. The coding process was
conducted by two coders who were postgraduate students in media and communication,
following a detailed coding manual. The content was analyzed using ten key attributes
related to BRI projects: “debt concern”, “economic development”, “infrastructure devel-
opment”, “environmental concerns”, “local concerns”, “lack of transparency”, “lack of
coordination”, “Chinese interest”, “regional connectivity”, and “Paukphaw relations”. A
“pretest” of the coding process was conducted on 30% of the sampled articles (25 from
each outlet) to ensure “inter-coder reliability”, yielding an average reliability coefficient
of “0.85”, which is within the accepted range for such analyses (Lovejoy et al.,2016).
Data from the first coder were used for the analysis, and 143 articles yielded a total of
“1236” frames, with RFA contributing “523” attributes (41.5%) and VOA contributing “713”
frames (58.4%).
6.2. Online Survey
The implementation of the “agenda-setting theory” is one of the strongest indi-
cators that still relies on surveys for measuring public opinion over time, appearing
prominently in influential scholarly research (Golan & Wanta,2001;M. McCombs,1995;
M. E. McCombs & Shaw,1972
;Takeshita,1993). The advantages of using online surveys
over classical survey methods include lower cost, faster turnaround time, and more flex-
ibility in terms of the design of the survey form and data collection (Evans & Mathur,
2005). These surveys are particularly useful in reaching large, diverse, and geographically
dispersed populations which may be difficult to reach using traditional means (Granello
& Wheaton,2004). Accordingly, this study adopted an online survey to examine public
perceptions of BRI projects in Myanmar. Online surveys were conducted from 1 March to
29 April 2024.
An online survey was built around “ten key attributes” linked to four core issues
related to BRI projects in Myanmar. Before disseminating the final survey, a “pilot test”
encompassing 50 participants was conducted to verify question clarity and reliability. The
survey involved using the “Likert scale” and “multiple-choice” answers as well as “close-
and open-ended questions” to ensure the responses were extensive. A 385-person sam-
ple out of a target population of 300,000, intended to be representative of the national
confidence interval, would produce a survey with approximately a
±
5% margin of error
(Krejcie & Morgan,1970). Stratified random sampling was used to represent different
sociodemographic groups, such as urban, rural, and city dwellers, covering a wide range
of genders, education levels, and places. This ensured that the results were representative
of a larger population. These included questions that aimed to uncover what worried
respondents about the projects and how they believed the implementation was progress-
ing. These included questions like “What worries or impresses you of the BRI projects
in Myanmar?” and question the “How do you think about BRI progress in Myanmar?”
The purpose was to capture both the substantive and affective elements of BRI projects.
In the questionnaires, ten attributes in content analysis, including “debt concern”, “eco-
nomic development”, “infrastructure development”, “environmental concerns”, “local
concerns”, “lack of transparency”, “lack of coordination”, “Chinese interest”, “regional con-
nectivity”, and “Paukphaw relations”, were primarily incorporated, and the respondent’s
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 11 of 21
demographic characteristics, such as gender, location, and habits, served as independent
variables, whilst their attitudes towards the BRI projects, categorized as negative, neutral,
and positive, functioned as dependent variables.
In the post-piloting phase, modifications were made to the questionnaire items for
better understanding and to ensure that the questions were asked according to the aim.
After the last distribution, 385 individuals completed the survey from 410 respondents
who belonged to the valid sample units. The exclusion criterion was incomplete or in-
valid responses. One of the difficult features in designing the survey was to ask ques-
tions that reflected not only a specific timeframe (2011–2024) but also the main issues
related to BRI projects in Myanmar identified prior to content analysis. “Over the years,
what are your top BRI-related issues?” was added to ensure consistency across the data
collection methods.
6.3. In-Depth Interview
Quantitative content analysis has a high level of model processing, which makes it
useful in analyzing “documents” and “interview transcripts”, where coding is used for
pattern recognition based on the techniques described above. This technique, which is
used in conjunction with coding approaches to discover patterns and relationships within
data, can be applied to different paradigms of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods
research (White et al.,2006). Fakis et al. (2014) noted that using quantitative methods
with qualitative interview data can strengthen the robustness of research by providing
systematic access to complex real-world events (Fakis et al.,2014). This synthesis is the basis
for evaluating qualitative interviews and subsequently enables the triangulation of both
the direct and indirect effects of media and policy (Frels & Onwuegbuzie,2013). Therefore,
this study selected 30 participants for “in-depth interviews”, including 15 government
officials, 8 scholars, and 7 business professionals with extensive knowledge or experience
with BRI projects in Myanmar. The selection of these participants was purposeful and
guided by their expertise, which allowed the interviews to be rich and analytical in terms
of policy dimensions concerning BRI projects. These interviewees were incentivized and
encouraged to engage actively and give due importance to the questions. The questionnaire
was constructed around the frames previously used in similar studies on media and
public agendas, structured as a matrix, and consisted of semi-structured, closed-, and
open-ended questions.
These questions were designed to align with the longitudinal analysis of the media
agenda, focusing specifically on the policy priorities of successive governments concern-
ing BRI projects during the period 2011–2024. A significant challenge in conducting
these interviews was selecting the most appropriate participants and designing a ques-
tionnaire that effectively covered the relevant timeframe (2011–2024). Identifying ten
attributes, key questions were included: “What factors have shaped the policy agenda
of successive governments regarding BRI projects over the past years?” and “How do
you assess the policies developed by successive governments regarding BRI projects
in Myanmar?”
The interviews were conducted at venues and at times convenient for the participants,
with each interview lasting between 10 and 15 min. The interviews were recorded and
transcribed and the transcripts were coded by two coders. The same coding process used
in the content analysis phase was applied to interview data. The coders were provided
with a coding book and coding sheets to quantify the ten frames assigned to the four core
issues of the BRI projects, as defined in the content analysis. Before starting the coding
process, an inter-coder reliability pretest was conducted on 30% of the sample (10 tran-
scripts). Pretest average inter-coder reliability coefficients of 0.85 fell in the acceptable
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 12 of 21
range between 0.75 and 0.85 for these assessments (Lovejoy et al.,2016). Regarding the
coding of the 30 transcripts: there were 446 frames across the attributes and their four
corresponding issues.
7. Results
This study examined the relationship between media coverage, public opinion, and
policy priorities regarding BRI projects in Myanmar. We draw on the empirical foundations
of our analysis, such as RFA and VOA (media agenda, MA); public online surveys (public
agenda, PA); and in-depth interviews with policymakers, scholars, and businessmen, to
provide additional insights into policy community thinking (policy agenda, PAD). The
dataset supporting all analyses and tables presented in this section is available in the
Supplementary Materials (S1).
Table 1presents a comparison of the percentages and rankings of the key issue at-
tributes across media, public, and policy agendas. The findings indicated a substantial
alignment between these three agendas regarding certain key issues. For example, “China’s
strategic interest”, under the broader issue of “geopolitical and strategic considerations”,
is ranked first among all three agendas. Media coverage hypothesizes that this attribute
is 20.1%, while it appears to be similar in public (13.6%) and policy (14.8%) perception.
This consistency reflects the shared recognition of the geopolitical importance of China’s
involvement in Myanmar’s BRI projects. “Economic development”, tied to the issue of
“economic impacts and Chinese loans”, is another attribute that shows alignment. It was
ranked third across all three agendas, with media coverage at 12.4%, public opinion at
12.4%, and policy perspectives at 12.8%. This near-identical weighting across agendas
underscores the centrality of economic development in the discourse surrounding the
BRI projects.
However, discrepancies arise in “governance, transparency, and coordination”. Specif-
ically, the attribute of “lack of transparency” is ranked differently across the agendas, being
sixth in the media agenda (10.7%), fourth in the public agenda (11.4%), and fifth in the
policy agenda (11.2%). “Lack of coordination” shows even greater variation, ranked fourth
in the media (11.7%) but lower in the public (seventh, at 9.2%) and policy (eighth, at 8.4%)
agendas. These differences suggest that while governance issues are highlighted by the
media, the public and policymakers do not perceive them as equally urgent.
Table 1. Issues attributes of the BRI projects in media coverage, public opinion, and policy priorities.
Issues and Attributes Media Coverage Public Opinion Policy Priorities
%Rank %Rank %Rank
Economic impact and Chinese loans
(1) Debt concern 2.9 10 2.9 10 4.8 10
(2) Economic development 12.4 3 12.4 3 12.8 3
(3) Infrastructure development 11.1 5 10.8 5 12.3 4
Environmental and social impacts
(1) Environmental concern 6.1 8 8.7 6 10 6
(2) Local concern 15.4 2 13 2 13.5 2
Governance, transparency, and coordination
(1) Transparency in negotiation 10.7 6 11.4 4 11.2 5
(2) Necessary for coordination 11.7 4 9.2 7 8.4 8
Geopolitical and strategic considerations
(1) China’s strategic interest 20.1 1 13.6 1 14.8 1
(2) Regional connectivity 6.5 7 8.2 9 5.8 9
(3) Paukphaw relations 3.1 9 9.8 8 6.4 7
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 13 of 21
Table 2presents the correlation analysis, which reveals a strong positive relationship
between media and public agendas. This analysis revealed a strong positive correlation
(r = 0.8667, p= 0.0012) between the media agenda (MA) and public agenda (PA), which
was statistically significant at p< 0.05. This indicates a considerable alignment between
media-highlighted issues and public perception, suggesting that media coverage signifi-
cantly influences public opinion. Additionally, a robust correlation (r = 0.8182, p= 0.0038,
statistically significant at p< 0.05) was observed between the media agenda (MA) and policy
agenda (PAD), emphasizing the media’s impact on shaping governmental policy priorities,
particularly concerning BRI projects in Myanmar. These substantial correlations underscore
the media’s pivotal role in molding both public perception and policymaking regarding BRI
initiatives in Myanmar. Moreover, an exceptionally strong positive correlation (r = 0.9758,
p= 0.00001) was found between the public agenda (PA) and policy agenda (PDA), indicat-
ing a near-perfect alignment between public concerns and policymaking priorities. This
suggests that public discourse heavily informs governmental decisions, reinforcing the
interplay between public sentiment and policy actions, especially on controversial matters
such as land appropriation and foreign investment projects.
Notable correlations among the media agenda (MA), public agenda (PA), and policy
agenda (PAD) accentuate the media’s critical function in shaping societal discourse and
governmental priorities. Media focus directly impacts the perceptions of both the public
and policymakers, with the robust PA-PAD correlation indicating that public opinion has
a considerable influence over policy decisions. In other words, the strong link between
media reporting and public sentiment with press-highlighted issues often dominates
public discourse and influences government policies on foreign investments, including
BRI projects.
Table 2. Correlations between media, public, and policy agendas.
Media Agenda (MA) Public Agenda (PA) Policy Agenda (PAD)
rp-Value r p-Value r p-Value
Media Agenda (MA) 1.0000 NA 0.8667 0.0012 0.8182 0.0038
Public Agenda (PA) 0.8667 0.0012 1.0000 NA 0.9758 0.000001
Policy Agenda (PAD) 0.8182 0.0038 0.9758 0.00001 1.0000 NA
Grounded in “second-level agenda-setting theory”, media shapes public opinion by
emphasizing the salience of specific attributes of issues or objects. These shifts in public
opinion mediate the relationship between the media agenda and policy agenda. The path
analysis (SEM) model is the best-suited analytical method for examining the mediating role
of public opinion in linking media coverage to policymaking, testing whether public opinion
mediates the relationship between the media agenda and the policy agenda, and indicating
an indirect pathway through which media influences governmental policymaking.
Table 3presents the model fit statistics that substantiate the robustness of the path anal-
ysis (SEM) and corroborate the hypothesized relationships by examining whether public
opinion functions as a mediator between media coverage and policy priorities. The model
exhibited an exceptional fit, with a chi-square value that was not significant (p= 0.564),
suggesting no notable disparity between the proposed model and the observed data, thus
supporting the model’s suitability for elucidating relationships among variables. The
RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) value of 0.001, well below the threshold
of 0.05, indicates minimal approximation error and affirms the model’s good fit with the
population data. A comparative fit index (CFI) value of 1.00 denotes a perfect fit, verifying
that the hypothesized model explains the observed data nearly flawlessly compared to
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 14 of 21
a null model. A Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) value of 1.02, surpassing the recommended
0.95 threshold, further validates the robustness of the model. The slightly elevated value
(>1.0) reflects strong congruence between the hypothesized and observed data. An SRMR
(standardized root mean square residual) of 0.002, considerably below the 0.08 threshold,
underscores minimal residual differences between observed and predicted correlations.
Collectively, these findings confirm that the hypothesized path analysis (SEM) model
is well defined, aligns with the observed data, and provides a robust foundation for
interpreting the path analysis results presented in Table 4.
Table 3. Model fit statistics.
Fit Statistic Value Criteria for Good Fit Interpretation
Chi-square 0.333 p> 0.05 Good fit p= 0.564
RMSEA 0.001 <0.05 Excellent fit
CFI 1 >0.95 Perfect fit
TLI 1.02 >0.95 Excellent fit
SRMR 0.002 <0.08 Excellent fit
Table 4presents the calculated path coefficients, variance estimates, and indirect effects
that elucidate the interrelated connections among the media agenda (MA), public agenda
(PA), and policy agenda (PAD). These findings robustly support the theoretical model
rooted in second-level agenda-setting theory and illuminate the processes by which the
media impacts policymaking. Regarding direct effects, the path coefficient was 0.842, with
a standard error of 0.062 and a statistically significant p-value (p= 0.001). This outcome
reveals a robust, positive relationship between media coverage and public opinion, affirm-
ing the media’s considerable influence on shaping public perception. The standardized
coefficient (Std. All = 0.949) suggests that nearly 95% of the variation in the public agenda
is accounted for by the media agenda, underscoring its pivotal role in influencing pub-
lic sentiment. Conversely, the path coefficient was 0.928, with a standard error of 0.027
and a statistically significant p-value (p= 0.001). This result establishes an exceptionally
strong, positive relationship between public opinion and policy priorities, emphasizing the
significance of public sentiment in influencing policymaking decisions. The standardized
coefficient (Std. All = 0.992) highlights the near-perfect explanatory power of the public
agenda on the policy agenda.
Correspondingly, the indirect effect of the media agenda on policy agenda, mediated
by the public agenda, is determined as the product of the two direct path coefficients:
“Indirect Effect: 0.842
×
0.928 = 0.781”. This substantial indirect effect corroborates the
mediating function of the public agenda, demonstrating how the media indirectly shapes
policy priorities through its influence on public opinion. The prevalence of the indirect
pathway aligns with the theoretical framework that posits public opinion is a crucial
intermediary between media coverage and policymaking. Concerning the variance for the
public agenda, the variance estimate was 3.761, with a standard error of 1.189 and a z-value
of 3.162 (p= 0.002), indicating that the media agenda significantly explains the variation in
the public agenda. Regarding variance for the policy agenda, the variance estimate is 0.551,
with a standard error of 0.174 and a z-value of 3.162 (p= 0.002), confirming that the public
agenda accounts for a significant proportion of the variation in the policy agenda.
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 15 of 21
Table 4. Path estimates (direct and indirect effects) vs. variance estimates.
Estimate St. Error z-Value p-Value Std. LV Std. All
Path Public Agenda~Media
Agenda 0.842 0.062 0.001 0.842 0.949
Path Policy Agenda~Public
Agenda 0.928 0.027 0.001 0.928 0.992
Indirect Effect
(PDA~PA~MA) 0.781 - - - -
Variance Public Agenda 3.761 1.189 3.162 0.002 3.761 0.099
Variance Policy Agenda 0.551 0.174 3.162 0.002 0.551 0.017
Note: The indirect effect (PAD~MA via PA) is calculated as the product of the path coefficients.
The results elucidate the intricate connections between the media, public sentiment,
and policy formulation. Key inferences include the following: data confirm that public
opinion mediates the influence of the media on policy decisions, with a significant indirect
effect (0.781) showing the media’s impact on policy priorities through public perceptions.
The strong path coefficient (0.842) from the media agenda to the public agenda highlights
the media’s role in shaping public views on policy, consistent with the second-level agenda-
setting theory, which suggests that media attributes salience to issues and influences public
priorities. The strong path coefficient (0.928) from the public agenda to the policy agenda
illustrates the crucial role of public opinion in guiding policy decisions, indicating that
policymakers respond more to public sentiment than to direct media coverage.
The indirect pathway (media agenda
→
public agenda
→
policy agenda) emphasizes
the media’s cascading influence on policymaking, supporting the theory that the media’s
impact on governance is amplified through public opinion. Regarding the BRI projects,
the results underscore the importance of media narratives in shaping public perceptions,
which, in turn, affect policymaking domestically and internationally. Stakeholders and
policymakers in the BRI should recognize how media coverage influences public sentiment
and policy outcomes.
Accordingly, the results provide robust support for the conceptual model grounded
in second-level agenda-setting theory. The strong fit of the path analysis (SEM) model,
combined with the significant direct and indirect effects, highlights the media’s powerful
role in shaping public opinion and influencing policymaking. These findings contribute to
the growing body of literature on the agenda-setting theory by empirically demonstrating
the mediating role of public opinion in translating media narratives into policy priorities.
8. Discussion
The findings of this study underscore the significant role that the media plays in
shaping both public opinion and policy priorities regarding BRI projects in Myanmar.
The dataset supporting all analyses and tables presented in this section is available in
the Supplementary Materials (S1). The strong alignment between media coverage, public
perceptions, and policy decisions indicates that the issues emphasized in media reports are
not only absorbed by the public but also influence the direction of governmental decision-
making (Kosicki,1993). This is particularly evident in areas such as “China’s strategic
interest”, which consistently ranks as the most salient issue across media, public, and policy
agenda. This consensus reflects how central China’s geopolitical influence is perceived
in Myanmar’s BRI projects, a finding that reinforces the media’s ability to elevate specific
attributes of public and policy attention (Dearing & Rogers,1996;Rogers & Dearing,1988).
The majority of participants in the in-depth interviews also corroborated this conclusion,
acknowledging that “Myanmar’s strategic location, which connects South and Southeast
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 16 of 21
Asia and provides access to the Bay of Bengal, incentivizes China to invest in the country
for geopolitical reasons, a phenomenon frequently highlighted by news media.”
The analysis reveals critical disparities, particularly in terms of governance, trans-
parency, and coordination. These discrepancies, as indicated by the different rankings of the
attribute of “lack of transparency” across the three agendas, point to an area where media
coverage might not fully align with public or policy priorities. Although transparency
is a concern, its inconsistent ranking suggests that while the media draws attention to
the issue, it may not resonate as strongly with the public or policymakers or that it is
overshadowed by other pressing concerns, such as economic development or strategic
interests. This misalignment indicates a potential gap in how governance-related concerns
are communicated or perceived across these spheres, highlighting the need for targeted
media coverage to bridge this gap. These discrepancies were observed across successive
administrations. For instance, the Thein Sein government, failed to inform the local popula-
tion when signing the Kyaukphu seaport project. The Aung San Suu Kyi administration
did not implement an effective policy to address Kyaukphyu locals’ land-use concerns,
despite the positive collaboration between the government and Chinese investors in project
execution. During interviews, the government officials who participated indicated that
successive administrations exhibited insufficient transparency and coordination with local
populations in managing international investments in Myanmar, particularly regarding
Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects, which exacerbated local concerns.
Nevertheless, the outcome of the correlation analysis supports the proposition that the
media functions as a crucial factor in the agenda-setting process, indicating that the media
influences not only the issues to which the public should attend (M. E. McCombs & Shaw,
1993) but also those that policymakers will deem significant. This influence is not just a
simple transmission of information per se but also represents the specific attributes of issues
that then become pervasive in public and policy discourses. The strength of the estimated
media effects, as revealed by the path analysis, highlights the importance of public opinion
as a mediator between media coverage and policy priorities. When the news emphasizes
certain issues, the public will be concerned about them (second-level agenda setting—not
only issue salience but also how to think about an issue) (Rogers & Dearing,1988).
The good fit of the model, and hence a strong confirmation of the relationships found
in this study, as shown by the fit indices, are also indicative of this. Therefore, the direct
and indirect channels through which media coverage exerts an effect on public opinion
and, in turn, policy actions provide a more detailed account of how media content affects
set government agendas concerning international investments, including BRI projects. This
is important because it illustrates the role of public opinion as a conduit for media effects
to be translated into policy actions (Kosicki,1993). For instance, during the Aung San Suu
Kyi administration, RFA and VOA reports highlighted recurring land appropriation issues.
Consequently, 20% of the 1514 acres taken from over 180 residents of Wha Thanang Pei
Ward were reclassified as urban land and reallocated to Plot No. 159, Blok Nyunt Ward.
This may emphasize that the agenda-setting effects of media should be considered as an
indirect guide to policy decisions on how it presents issues in public discourse.
In Myanmar’s BRI projects, while NGOs, academics, and politicians are believed to
shape public opinion, the media play a crucial role in informing and influencing views.
The media’s impact on public sentiment partially supports the notion that media influence
affects policy decisions, as seen in the suspension of the Myitsone Dam project under
Thein Sein and the reevaluation of Kyaukphyu initiatives under the NLD government.
Policymakers and Chinese investors should consider this when implementing the BRI
projects in other countries.
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 17 of 21
Nevertheless, as this study focuses on general trends in media coverage, public sen-
timent, and governmental policy priorities from 2011 to 2024, it is important to note that
these patterns may fluctuate according to the ruling administration. The influence of media
coverage on public opinion and its consequent impact on government policy decisions may
have been more pronounced during the National League for Democracy (NLD) government
than during the current State Administration Council (SAC) regime. Based on feedback
from interviewees, while public sentiment remains relevant, it exerts less influence on the
State Administration Council (SAC) government’s policymaking processes in comparison
to the two previous administrations after 2011.
However, the gaps identified in “governance, transparency, and coordination”, while
partly aligned with the total advice situation, provided some implicative evidence that some
kinds of issues were most effectively reported (or not reported) to the media. These gaps
may deprive the public and policymakers of important information about all dimensions
of BRI projects, especially in areas where sustained accountability and coordination are
crucial. Various media outlets have distinct agendas and approaches to the presentation
of selected topics to their audiences. In this regard, the journalists who participated in
the interview process disclosed that they had their own criteria for selecting topics and
attributed them to their coverage of individuals, including matters related to Chinese
projects. This finding corroborates the notion that there is a discrepancy between media
coverage, public perceptions, and government policy priorities. To fill these gaps, future
media attention may shift to governance as an area of greater reporting and update the
public on the risk of transparency problems and disjointedness for massive infrastructure
plans, such as those involved in the BRI.
Ultimately, the media has an important effect on the formation of public and policy
agendas for BRI projects in Myanmar, but influence is shaped directly by public opinion.
Although there is some convergence in many areas, such as political, economic, and strategic
issues, disparities in governance and transparency are evident. Journalists covered most
of these issues and featured more than a few special reports. However, the findings point
to the importance of nuanced media coverage to avoid public debate and policy-focused
attention from privileging some causes at the expense of others.
9. Conclusions
This study seeks to contribute to the literature on second-level agenda-setting with a
focus on BRI projects in Myanmar, an area that has rarely been investigated in regard to
communication. Previous studies have primarily examined electoral politics and policy
topics in established democracies. Using the second-level agenda-setting theory, this study
broadens its application to international development projects. The findings highlight
media coverage and its substantial impact on shaping public opinion and policy priorities
(primarily with reference to economic growth, infrastructure, and China’s strategic inter-
ests). They demonstrate that the effects of media not only determine issue salience, but also
how key attributes are associated in public and policymakers’ minds—a question previ-
ously unanswered by the general literature on media influence on large-scale infrastructure
projects, such as the BRI.
In their findings, the path analysis from this study indicated a shift in media influence
away from the policy itself and towards an indirect effect via public opinion. The strong fit
of the path analysis (SEM) model, combined with the significant direct and indirect effects,
highlights the media’s powerful role in shaping public opinion and influencing policy-
making. These findings contribute to the growing body of literature on the agenda-setting
theory by empirically demonstrating the mediating role of public opinion in translating
media narratives into policy priorities. This finding also highlights the role of public sen-
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 18 of 21
timent as an intervening variable between media portrayals and policy agenda setting.
The media’s portrayal of events significantly influences what becomes acceptable in public
discourse, as individuals often mirror or articulate the perspectives presented in news
media. This influence subsequently creates pressure to determine government priority. This
mediated effect is very strong in terms of the “economic and infrastructural development”
issue, indirectly emphasizing that the media not only influences public investments at the
mass level but also government investment decisions (Golan & Wanta, 2001).
However, this study also highlights areas where the media are largely absent from
reporting, namely, issues of “environmental sustainability and governance transparency”,
which are surprisingly less prominent in public and policy discourses. This underscores the
importance of a more balanced and nuanced media portrayal to ensure that all necessary
questions are asked about this ambitious initiative in both public and policy discourse.
Policymakers should be aware of the media’s impact on public opinion and ensure that their
policies balance the economic benefits for a country with potential future environmental
and governance issues. This study has proven that second-level agenda-setting theory
provides an appropriate tool to study policy issues in international development as it
examines how mass media can shape public opinion, which could further affect context-
specific policymaking.
The strong correlation between societal concerns and governmental priorities suggests
a collaborative approach in which public opinion influences decision-making, particularly
on issues such as foreign investments and BRI projects. This research emphasizes the
media’s crucial role in shaping societal and governmental agendas for significant infras-
tructure projects such as the BRI in Myanmar. This study highlights the link between
media reporting, public sentiment, and policy formulation, underscoring the importance
of transparent and comprehensive policy procedures that address societal concerns and
ensure responsible management of large-scale initiatives.
In conclusion, this study contributes to the existing knowledge in practical, theoretical,
and methodological aspects based on three fundamental premises. First, it addresses the
academic oversight of media influence, which may have led to the cessation of significant
projects during various governmental periods in Myanmar coinciding with media dereg-
ulation. Second, it highlights the lack of studies on the effects of media (agenda-setting)
effects on BRI projects in Myanmar, despite extensive literature on related aspects. Lastly, it
notes insufficient research on media effects concerning global infrastructure initiatives such
as the BRI in developing Southeast Asian countries.
Considering future research endeavors, this study has certain limitations. As its pri-
mary focus was to examine media effects on policy priorities mediated through public
opinion regarding BRI projects through an empirical study of agenda-setting effects, this
study does not address broader contextual factors, such as Myanmar’s media landscape,
governmental influence on media, the multifaceted roles of journalists, or geopolitical
considerations. The study also acknowledges limitations, including restricted access to
comprehensive data due to political and logistical challenges in Myanmar, which elucidate
areas for future research. In addition, as this study focuses on general trends in media
coverage, public sentiment, and governmental policy priorities from 2011 to 2024, it is
important to note that these patterns may fluctuate according to the ruling administration.
Therefore, future research may focus on the temporal changes in media trends, compar-
ing successive governments and incumbent administrations in democratic countries, as
different regimes possess varying policy stances on international investments, which may
render public attitudes influenced by the media less relevant. In future research, the study
also should examine a broader array of media sources (e.g., local news) in addition to more
contemporary or “hybrid” sources (e.g., social media), as such approaches could provide
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 19 of 21
insight into the relative advantage of different types of platforms offering agenda setting
and transfer among the public and between the public and political elites.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/journalmedia6010015/s1. S1: Dataset for Analysis.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.O. and Y.D.; methodology, Z.O.; software, Z.O.; valida-
tion, Z.O. and Y.D.; formal analysis, Z.O.; investigation, Z.O.; resources, Z.O.: data curation, Z.O.;
writing—original draft preparation, Z.O.; witting—review and editing, Z.O. and Y.D.; visualization,
Z.O.; supervision, Y.D.; project adiministration, Z.O.; funding acquisition, Y.D. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the major project entitled “Study on the Impact of the Situation
in the Bay of Bengal Region on the Safety of China’s East Data and West Computing Project” (Project
No.22ZDA181), funded by the “National Social Science Foundation in 2022”.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical
guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Due to the nature of the Study, which involved content
analysis of news coverage from two international news outlets and an online survey of Myanmar
residents, and in-depth interviews, and the absence of personal data utlization, in accordance with the
laws of Myanmar, the study was deemed exempt from Ethic Committee approval. Ethics Committee
approval from Shenzhen University was not required, as the research conducted outside China and
did not involve sensitive personal data.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,107(2), 238–246. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Carroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s images and opinions about major
corporations. Corporate Reputation Review,6, 36–46. [CrossRef]
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. [CrossRef]
Cook, F. L., Tyler, T. R., Goetz, E. G., Gordon, M. T., Protess, D., Leff, D. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1983). Media and agenda setting: Effects
on the public, interest group leaders, policy makers, and policy. Public Opinion Quarterly,47(1), 16. [CrossRef]
Craft, S., & Wanta, W. (2004). US public concerns in the aftermath of 9–11: A test of second level agenda-setting. International Journal of
Public Opinion Research,16(4), 456–463. [CrossRef]
Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-Setting: Vol. 6. SAGE Publications, Inc. [CrossRef]
De Sola Pool, I., & Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. American Sociological Review,17(4), 515. [CrossRef]
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication,43(4), 51–58. [CrossRef]
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research,15(2), 195–219. [CrossRef]
Fakis, A., Hilliam, R., Stoneley, H., & Townend, M. (2014). Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Information from Interviews: A
Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,8(2), 139–161. [CrossRef]
Frels, R. K., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2013). Administering Quantitative Instruments with Qualitative Interviews: A Mixed Research
Approach. Journal of Counseling & Development,91(2), 184–194. [CrossRef]
Golan, G., & Wanta, W. (2001). Second-level agenda setting in the New Hampshire primary: A comparison of coverage in three
newspapers and public perceptions of candidates. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,78(2), 247–259.
Granello, D. H., & Wheaton, J. E. (2004). Online Data Collection: Strategies for Research. Journal of Counseling & Development,82(4),
387–393. [CrossRef]
Gyi, M. M. (2019). “The Belt and Road Initiative”(BRI) and Its Implication on Myanmar. Mandalay University of Foreign Languages
Research Journal,10(1), 106–113.
Htwe, T. K. (2020). Geopolitics of the Belt and Road Initiative: Implications for Myanmar. WIMAYA,1(02), 1–9. [CrossRef]
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 20 of 21
Hurley, J., Morris, S., & Portelance, G. (2019). Examining the debt implications of the Belt and Road Initiative from a policy perspective.
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development,3(1), 139–175. [CrossRef]
Indulska, M., Hovorka, D. S., & Recker, J. (2012). Quantitative approaches to content analysis: Identifying conceptual drift across
publication outlets. European Journal of Information Systems,21(1), 49–69. [CrossRef]
Ireri, K. (2009). Correlating news media agenda-setting to public opinion in Kenya’s 2007 general election [Master’s thesis, Maimi University].
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (2010). News that matters: Television and American opinion. University of Chicago Press.
Jamieson, T., & Van Belle, D. A. (2018). Agenda setting, localisation and the third-person effect: An experimental study of when news
content will directly influence public demands for policy change. Political Science,70(1), 58–91. [CrossRef]
Jamilah, M., & Novita, D. (2019, September 5–6). Belt and road initiative project in Myanmar: China public diplomacy. The 1st International
Conference On Asean (IC-Asean), Padang, Indonesia.
Khin Kyi, T., & Xiang, Z. (2020). The 21st century Maritime Silk Road and the role of Myanmar. Journal of East China Normal University
(Natural Science),2020(S1), 1.
Kim, S.-H., Han, M., Choi, D.-H., & Kim, J.-N. (2012). Attribute agenda setting, priming and the media’s influence on how to think
about a controversial issue. International Communication Gazette,74(1), 43–59. [CrossRef]
Kline, R. B. (2018). Response to Leslie Hayduk’s Review of Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th Edition.
Canadian Studies in Population,45(3–4), 188. [CrossRef]
Kobayashi, Y., & King, J. (2022). Myanmar’s strategy in the China–Myanmar economic corridor: A failure in hedging? International
Affairs,98(3), 1013–1032. [CrossRef]
Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication,43(2), 100–127. [CrossRef]
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement,30(3),
607–610. [CrossRef]
Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. International Encyclopedia of Communication,1(1), 403–407.
Lee Rodgers, J., & Nicewander, W. A. (1988). Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician,42(1), 59–66.
[CrossRef]
Lenskyi, P. (2020). Belt and road initiative: Formation of the china-myanmar economic corridor. Chinese Studies,2020(1), 37–46.
[CrossRef]
Li, X. (2020, January 10). Xi to make first visit in new year to Myanmar—Global times. Global Times. Available on-
line: https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1176359.shtml?fbclid=IwAR1BhY97XcINYZ2l8eOwVJ
_
7XIwe26NPk
_
UYL2QOqK
-TbvWAJBm5JdCzjXI (accessed on 7 December 2023).
Lovejoy, J., Watson, B. R., Lacy, S., & Riffe, D. (2016). Three decades of reliability in communication content analyses: Reporting of
reliability statistics and coefficient levels in three top journals. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,93(4), 1135–1159.
[CrossRef]
Malik, J. M. (2020). Myanmar ’s role in China’s Maritime Silk Road initiative. In China’s new global strategy (pp. 174–190). Routledge.
McCombs, M. (1995). The media outside and the pictures in our heads: Surveying the second dimension of agenda setting. In Artículo
presentado en new trends in communication. Universita Degli Studi Di Roma La Sapienza.
McCombs, M. (1997). Building consensus: The news media’s agenda-setting roles. Political Communication,14(4), 433–443. [CrossRef]
McCombs, M., Llamas, J. P., Lopez-Escobar, E., & Rey, F. (1997). Candidate images in Spanish elections: Second-level agenda-setting
effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,74(4), 703–717.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly,36(2), 176. [CrossRef]
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal
of Communication,43(2), 58–67. [CrossRef]
Myers, L., & Sirois, M. J. (2014). Spearman correlation coefficients, differences between. In R. S. Kenett, N. T. Longford, W. W. Piegorsch,
& F. Ruggeri (Eds.), Wiley statsref: Statistics reference online (1st ed.). Wiley. [CrossRef]
Oo, Z., & Dai, Y. (2024). Media influence and public opinion on Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects in Myanmar: A first-level
agenda-setting analysis. Journalism and Media,5(4), 4. [CrossRef]
Oo, Z., Dai, Y., Edderssi, Y., Dipak, D., & Singh, B. (2024). Media’s perception of China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC): A
framing analysis of media discourse on chinese investments in Myanmar. Studies in Media and Communication,12(3), 3. [CrossRef]
Perse, E. M., & Lambe, J. (2016). Media effects and society. Routledge.
Protess, D., & McCombs, M. E. (2016). Agenda setting: Readings on media, public opinion, and policymaking. Routledge.
Richard, A., Bizikumarina, L., & Zulkifli, N. (2022). The impact of One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative on Myanmar. Zulfaqar Journal
of Defence Management, Social Science & Humanities,5(2), 82–89.
Rogers, E. M., & Dearing, J. W. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going? Annals of the International
Communication Association,11(1), 555–594. [CrossRef]
Rogers, E. M., Dearing, J. W., & Bregman, D. (1993). The anatomy of agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication,43(2), 68–84.
[CrossRef]
Journal. Media 2025,6, 15 21 of 21
Schulhof, V., van Vuuren, D., & Kirchherr, J. (2022). The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): What will it look like in the future? Technological
Forecasting and Social Change,175, 121306. [CrossRef]
Shattuck, T. J. (2018). How China dictates the rules of the game (p. 25). E-Notes, Foreign Policy Research Institute.
Shaw, E. F. (1979). Agenda-setting and mass communication theory. Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands),25(2), 96–105. [CrossRef]
Soroka, S. N. (2002). Issue attributes and agenda-setting by media, the public, and policymakers in Canada. International Journal of
Public Opinion Research,14(3), 264–285. [CrossRef]
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An Interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
25(2), 173–180. [CrossRef]
Taidong, Z. (2019). Aligning the belt and road initiative with Myanmar’s sustainable development plan: Opportunities and challenges.
IDS Bulletin,50(4), 69–88. [CrossRef]
Takeshita, T. (1993). Agenda-setting effects of the press in a Japanese local election. Studies of Broadcasting,29(1), 17–38.
Tan, Y., & Weaver, D. H. (2010). Media Bias, Public Opinion, and Policy Liberalism from 1956 to 2004: A Second-Level Agenda-Setting
Study. Mass Communication and Society,13(4), 412–434. [CrossRef]
Teo, H. C., Lechner, A. M., Walton, G. W., Chan, F. K. S., Cheshmehzangi, A., Tan-Mullins, M., Chan, H. K., Sternberg, T., & Campos-
Arceiz, A. (2019). Environmental impacts of infrastructure development under the belt and road initiative. Environments,6(6), 72.
[CrossRef]
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika,38(1), 1–10. [CrossRef]
Van Aelst, P. (2014). 12. Media, political agendas and public policy. Polit. Commun,18, 231.
Wanta, W., Golan, G., & Lee, C. (2004). Agenda setting and international news: Media influence on public. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly,81, 2. [CrossRef]
Weaver, D., McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (2004). Agenda-setting research: Issues, attributes, and influences. In Handbook of political
communication research (pp. 275–300). Routledge.
White, M. D., Marsh, E. E., Marsh, E. E., & White, M. D. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends,55(1),
22–45. Available online: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/202361/55.1white
_
tab01.html (accessed on 15 September 2024).
[CrossRef]
Wolfe, M., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). A failure to communicate: Agenda setting in media and policy studies. Political
Communication,30(2), 175–192. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
