Keywords

Power, Freedom, Security, Justice, Sphere.

Introduction

The public agenda is a phenomenon that has been approached from disciplines such as psychology and communication, but without the political approach that supports it (Lirios et al., 2017). In other words, social psychology focused on the impact of official or opposition communication on the socio-cognitive processes of the governed. In this sense, studies of attitudes towards rulers saturated psychosocial approaches. In the case of social communication, the classic investigations of the establishment of the agenda still suggest that it is the media that influence public policies through public opinion (Martinez-Munoz et al., 2019). A third discipline, political sociology, deals with the public agenda as an instrument of state power, confining citizens to simple recipients; sympathizers, adherents or militants of a non-corrupt government (Lirios et al., 2017; Aguayo et al., 2017). Interdisciplinary approaches such as psychology, sociology or communication with political surnames have not been able to clear up the question as to why the agenda was not always established from presidential decisions, parliamentary initiatives, media interests or civil participation (Molina Ruiz et al., 2019). In this way, a multidisciplinary approach seems to have the opportunity to explain the emergence of the agenda as a complex phenomenon. The disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches coincide in appreciating the establishment of the agenda as a chain of events that emanate from the government or from the media and electronic social networks (Garcia-Lirios, 2021a). Until now, the public agenda has not been observed as an emerging reflection of the relations between the rulers and the ruled, with the media or social networks being instruments for managing policies or social needs.

The media and social networks are assumed by this writing as a key piece in the establishment of an agenda for democratic purposes, however, a review of the categories of power, freedom, security and justice seem to guide the discussion towards their inclusion. As instruments of the State for the governability of civil society (Guillen et al., 2014). In this sense, it is necessary to analyze the possible scenarios in which the media establish the issues of the civil and political spheres around the clarification of their differences (Guillen et al., 2014). Such a discussion exercise will allow us to anticipate the contexts in which the actors, society, market, State and media will travel through three axes that go from power to freedom, from security to insecurity and from justice to injustice based on two approaches: liberal and community (Lirios et al., 2017). Once the axes of discussion between the parties involved have been established, governance is exposed as a scenario in which the public agenda emerges and is not always the product of ideologies, interests, positions or needs (Garcia-Lirios, 2021b). That is, the public agenda as a distinctive feature of governance allows a new approach that serves as a contrast with the classic contributions of psychology, communication sociology, as well as their interdisciplinary approaches (Garcia et al., 2019; Fuentes et al., 2016). Such an exercise is possible if the public agenda is viewed as a satellite of governance with direct influence on the relationship between public and private, political and social actors.

The relationships between public spheres imply the analysis of axes through which individuals travel in reference to the State and the market (Guillen et al., 2014). Mainly, the civil and political spheres have been disrupted by the media and in the case of civil society it has been confined to a scenario of perceptions in which the categories of security and justice are transformed into emotions related to anger, and I am afraid and sad. This process is based on media effects in which a public agenda is established through the frame and its associated meanings. In such a scenario, this article discusses the relationships that are built between the civil sphere and the political sphere. To do this, the media field is analyzed around the categories of power, freedom, security and justice. Once their similarities and differences have been exposed, three axes are foreseen for the analysis of the facts and their media coverage.

However, it should be noted that the axes of discussion derive from two approaches: liberal and communal (Garcia-Lirios, 2021a). In the first, the public spheres are considered as instruments of power and freedom, in the second, the categories of power and freedom are assumed as external factors to the community dynamics, its values, beliefs and traditions. In both axes, liberal and communal, the categories of security and justice are transformed into injustice and insecurity through a perceptive process in which the media bias information and spread sentiments, emotions and sentiments related to citizens and communities as victims of political power.

On the construction of a democratic sphere and a participatory agenda, the civil and political spheres not only move in liberal or communal axes, but also oscillate between the meanings of power, freedom, security and justice (Garcia-Lirios, 2021b). That is why this work answers a fundamental question. Starting from the assumption that public spheres are entities of representation, discussion and action, the construction of democracy would be observed in a sphere that, in addition to sharing the characteristics of public spheres, also facilitates the construction of a public agenda, although it is influenced by the questions that the media bias when establishing a frame of the facts. It should be noted that this document does not intend to carry out an exhaustive review of the terms, but rather tries to relate the categories based on axes of discussion that can serve to anticipate at least three scenarios:

In the first, the public spheres diffuse freedoms, opportunities, capacities and responsibilities to build an anti-democratic public sphere in which the power of the State dilutes the conflicts that will lead to the transformation of the spheres into perceptive entities from which the individuals. In a plane of relative freedom since they will be able to express and discuss their ideas to the detriment of their safety.

In the second scenario, the approach of the individual to build a diversity of private spheres from which the power of the State has been reduced to its minimum expression, but the media have consolidated a media agenda that allows them to define the topics of discussion permeated of emotions, affects and feelings rather than of reasoning, planning or deliberation (Sanchez et al., 2021).

In the third scenario, the media have been confined to mere instruments of state power, which has become the guiding axis of rational and affective discourses and actions of both individuals and public spheres (Sandoval et al., 2021). Being able to be subject to freedom, security and justice in the background means the emergence of authoritarianism and deliberative totalitarianism and therefore accepted by individuals and spheres to guarantee their protection against risk events that threaten their existence.

Public spheres have been developed as concepts to explain the processes that involve power relations, establishment of freedom, and guarantee of security and achievement of justice (Guillen et al., 2014). From a conventional order, the spheres have been classified to identify actors involved in the phenomena that inscribe them as sociological objects. Because of the spheres they are observable and verifiable, it should be noted that they explain the articulation between society, state and market without denigrating the participation of the media, they are limited to the instrumentation of ideologies or propaganda that are designed from the spheres of power restrict civil liberties.

The public spheres suppose a conglomeration of social nuances with respect to which citizens, the State and the market are attached to a system of symbols, senses and meanings oriented to obtaining freedoms to generate opportunities, develop capacities and establish responsibilities (Lirios et al., 2016). On the other hand, the military spheres assume society as a homogeneous entity to which they are subordinated no longer by civil control, but by the control of weapons that can be used as instruments of suspension of rights and possible political instability.

That is, civil society as a sphere of inclusion of individuals assumes that the praetorian order is an instrument of self-control, but considers the political and economic spheres as exogenous to its participatory and democratic development (Lirios et al., 2016). In the political sphere, according to the definition of the civil sphere, the differences between the public and private spheres are resolved, since the State in matters of security is called upon to be a timely guardian of the freedoms and management capacities of civil rights. However, in the case of the economic sphere, civil society delegates its investment and consumption decisions to financial institutions, since the market is considered a scenario of supply and demand in which citizens only have the right to freedom of choice and not of decision. In its contractualist essence, the State and civil society agreed to subordinate individuals to a framework of political rights in which democracy seems to emerge as a result of clauses, that is, individuals delegated to society in the first instance and to the State in the second order, your freedom. The notion of the civil sphere finds meaning in the most varied phenomena in which society, reduced to the individual, confronts the State, although this implies the coexistence of both spheres: the civil and the political in clear allusion to the market (Garcia-Lirios, 2021a). This is because values and actions are not linked by planned decisions, but by power structures that cross public spheres and separate them from their essence as inclusion, discussion and construction. The market is also a sphere that underlies the political sphere and the civil sphere to protect the symbols of production relations. Indeed, the public spheres subordinated to the economic sphere find accommodation in the assumptions that reveal them: power, freedom, security and justice.

Power and freedom are essential for the identification of public spheres, but the terms of security and justice serve to discern their scope and limits when setting the agenda (Garcia, 2019). There are three axes along which the spheres travel and unhook to become public. In the first axis, power and freedom, in the second security and insecurity and in the third justice and injustice.

In the first of the axes: power and freedom inhibit the mobility of the civil sphere in reference to the political sphere since the State in its openness to the protection of the private with public interest, restricts freedoms, but the civil sphere in its diversity of expression, it finds in the freedom of choice a counterweight to the incidence of the State in its intimacy (Avila & Avila, 2012).

Once opportunities have been established based on freedoms, the civil sphere develops capacities and establishes responsibilities as fundamental parts of its development process. On the second axis: security and insecurity are concepts that exemplify the distances between the civil and political spheres because while society speculates that insecurity is the ultimate manifestation of the institutions that restrict freedoms, the ruling class maintains that its main function is to safeguard public interests, even though surveillance systems are increasingly financed by private individuals (Garcia et al., 2013).

In the third of the axes: justice and injustice represent the public interests on which their privacy options are reflected that, beyond the relations between the State, society and the market, the public spheres are exhibited as scenarios in which it is possible the emergence of procedures that allow or inhibit recognition and punishment as measures to regulate relationships between individuals (Mejia, 2011).

In short, the public spheres were built from three axes of power-freedom, security-insecurity and justice-injustice from which the spheres have been developed discursively, as the conglomerates of thought, society, state and market they have settled their differences by establishing agendas through the media (Aguilar et al., 2016).

However, in the process of reconversion of the civil, political, economic, community and public spheres, the media have privileged the establishment of issues that, due to their association with security events, built a representation of power opposed to that of liberty and liberty (Garcia-Lirios, 2021b). Consequently, the justice-injustice axis was positioned as a pillar in the construction of a democratic agenda. At such a juncture, the media sphere filtered its themes into the civil discussion to support the transformation of the political sphere into a sphere of power in which security and justice were issues diametrically opposed to freedom.

The public spheres, in their economic and public, community and liberal, central and peripheral dimensions, articulate a democratic sphere guided by systems of power, freedom, security and justice, but which, when moving towards the perceptive axes of civil society, they are transformed into insecurity and injustice.

In such a scenario, the relationship between State, society and market seems to be in dissonance with the liberal assumption according to which the civil and political spheres are promoters of the economic sphere in which the expressiveness of individuals reaches its maximum splendor (Irises, 2020). The public and the private, as liberal ideology says, are embodied in values, beliefs and actions in which the individual is constituted as a citizen and the formal State establishes its security systems in tune with freedom of choice.

On the other hand, in what corresponds to the communal, the civil spheres suppose the improvement of the tribal systems in which the sense of belonging coincides with the following of principles that can be collective, group and individual, but that govern the decisions and actions. of each member of the community. In both axes, liberal and communal, security is perceived when the State exercises its coercive power and underlies the perception of injustice. However, unlike the liberal axis, the communal axis considers that injustice is ancestral and not emergent as liberal civil society assumes (White & de la Fuente, 2010).

Methodology

The public agenda, unlike the political or citizen agenda, seeks to balance information biases. In this sense, a documentary, cross-sectional and retrospective study is necessary. Documentary in the sense of the flow of information in journals indexed in international repositories. It is a review of titles and abstracts as a fundamental criterion for informative monitoring. In this sense, the review cuts in each period mean a cross-sectional study. Every review is retrospective, but not every retrospective implies a review that is unlikely given the accumulation of data. In this way, the scope of the public agenda can be established through a documentary, cross-sectional and retrospective tour because the technical and delimited cuts are a feasible tour for the universe of available information.

The bibliographic review was carried out in repositories such as Academia, Copernicus, Dimensions, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academics, Frontiers, Latindex, Scopus, Redalyc, Scielo, Zenodo and Zotero, considering the search keywords as “agenda”, during the period from the pandemic from 2019 to 2022 (Table 1).

Table 1 Description Of The Sample
Repository	Schedule
	2019	2020	2021
Academy	4	1	1
Copernicus	3	2	2
Dialnet	2	2	3
Dimensions	5	3	1
Ebsco	4	4	2
Borders	1	1	4
Google	3	1	3
JCR	4	1	2
latindex	2	2	4
Mendeley	1	1	4
Microsoft	2	3	5
Redalyc	1	4	4
Scielo	4	2	3
Scopus	3	3	2
Zenodo	5	1	1
Zotero	4	2	1

Due to the fact that the information will be processed at different levels and episodes, the filtering of this data was carried out with a Delphi Matrix Inventory in which the qualifications of the expert judges on the topics are recorded. A second phase consists of self-correction comparing the first impressions with the average evaluations of the judges. In the third instance, the reconsideration or reaffirmation of the criteria of the participants allows a new contrast (Table 2).

Table 2 Descriptive Of The Judges
Sex	Age	Grade	Antiquity	Entry
Male	35	Post doctorate	5	28'341.00
Male	42	Post doctorate	13	30'321.00
Feminine	51	Post doctorate	17	27'435.00
Feminine	47	Doctorate	13	22'891.00
Male	62	Doctorate	26	31'435.00
Male	38	Post doctorate	10	25'092.00
Feminine	49	Post doctorate	12	36'981.00

The axes and topics of discussion related to the dimensions of the public agenda were established, considering the sum of the ratings of the judges that ranged from -1 when considering that the government influences citizen opinion through the media, 0 for the null influence between political and private actors, as well as political and social ones, +1 for the influence of citizens in local public policies (Table 3).

Table 3 Delphi Inventory Matrix
Repository		Author	Dimension	References
Scopus		Bermudez-Ruíz et al. (2021)	Organizational	43
Scielo		Garcia-Lirios (2021a)	Mobility	36
Ebsco		Molina et al. (2021)	Perceptual	57
Scilite		Lirios et al. (2021)	Institutional	42

Once the investigative agenda was established from the Delphi inventory, the statistical distributions of the judges' qualifications were estimated. The data was captured in the Excel program and processed in the JASP program (version 14.0). In order to be able to demonstrate the non-parametric distribution, the means, standard deviations, correlations, chi square, adjustment and residual were calculated (Table 4).

Table 4 Equations For Parameter Estimation
Parameters	Definition	Equation
M	Mean
SD	Standard deviation
SEM	Structural Equation Modeling
x2 _	Chi squared
GFI	Goodness of Fit Index
IFC	Comparative Fit Index
RMSEA	Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation

Results

Table 5 shows the normal distribution values that indicate that the Delphi inventory meets the minimum requirements for multivariate analysis. This is the case of the correlations between the categories and the indicators that suggested the modeling of the axes, trajectories and relationships. This means that the public agenda includes four dimensions related to organization, mobility, perception and institutionality. In this sense, it is possible to observe a structure of categories and extracts from the stories of the literature in the period from 2019 to 2021.

Table 5 Instrument Descriptives
	M	SD	C1	C2	C3	C4
R1
a1	4.32	1.24	0.431*
a2	4.35	1.45	0.436**	0.421*
a3	4.81	1.54	0.365*	0.568*	0.643**
a4	4.31	1.17	0.398***	0.305*	0.457*	0.546*
R2
a1	4.54	1.89	0.621*
a2	4.76	1.03	0.439**	0.530*
a3	4.32	1.24	0.612***	0.430**	0.623*
a4	4.30	1.46	0.430*	0.541***	0.430**	0.549*
R2
a1	4.65	1.53	0.532***
a2	4.32	1.13	0.439*	0.540***
a3	4.14	1.68	0.312*	0.344*	0.389***
a4	4.30	1.08	0.540**	0.435*	0.421*	0.430***

 

Figure 1 shows the relationships between the summaries and the categories reviewed in the state of knowledge during the pandemic period. The prevalence of the four dimensions with respect to the four selected summaries is noted. This means that the public agenda for sustainability has focused on organizations, mobility, perception and institutionality. Therefore, the public agenda is configured from the organizations dedicated to the establishment of sustainability, followed by mobility policies, their evaluation through perception and their level of institutionality.

Discussion

It is the media that promote perceptions of insecurity and injustice in the liberal and communal spheres to influence the political sphere through three effects: agenda, framing and intensity.

The agenda effect supposes that the public spheres are exposed to the circulation of information related to topics that the media disseminate according to their interests, not in the sense of their audience or levels of expectation, but in the sense of the association between the media sphere and politics whose intention is to govern the other spheres of influencing public opinion, but such an effect is short-lived since yesterday's issues have been forgotten by the audiences.

The framing effect, according to the theory of frames, is the result of advertising campaigns that are built from informational biases in which the State is presented as the guiding axis of both public and private life according to its actions.

It is exposed as the cause of the levels of security and justice. It is divided into a verisimilitude framework to defuse disagreements within the civil sphere around safety and injustice.

The media expose information that the audiences will contrast with their experiences and adjust the latter to the media frame of the events. In the case of the verifiability framework, the civil and political spheres are at the expense of the data that justify their decisions and actions.

In this sense, the media present information that will serve to define responsibilities. Due to its degree of complexity, the framing effect is the longest in terms of construction and establishment of information biases in public opinion.

The intensity effect is more ephemeral because it consists of a series of images that impact the citizen's perception of security events that it transforms into risks and threats, as well as of justice events that it codifies as impudent State actions. It is an effect that very precisely divides citizen perception into images and discourses and then guides decisions based on the symbols closest to their representations of power, freedom, security and justice. In this way, the meanings of insecurity and injustice are associated with that of power that is no longer perceived as an instrument of government, but as a mechanism of control and manipulation of the State towards the individual.

In short, the public spheres are exposed to the influence of the media to such an extent that the construction of a democratic agenda is permeated by concepts such as insecurity and injustice that are the result of three effects: agenda, framing and intensity. In such a scenario, the category of power is associated with perceptions of insecurity and injustice while the category of freedom is detached from security and justice in the liberal axis through which public spheres move.

On the contrary, in the communal axis, the public spheres are built from belonging, commitment and ancestral trust that suppose the permanence of meanings close to power, freedom, security and justice, but that do not end up substituting the values, norms, uses and customs that are created within a community.

Conclusion

The sustainability agenda had been considered as a set of priorities established from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but the results of this work warn that it is a management from civil society organizations. This is so because citizen participation is focused on the demands of these organizations, as well as from a response to mobility policies such as zero-emission transport. In this process, the perception of citizens consists of the calculation of costs and benefits in the face of imminent risks such as the pandemic. Lines related to the evaluation of public agendas in terms of sustainability will open the discussion around mobility and crime prevention strategies in the transfer spaces of civil organizations to public institutions.

References

Aguayo, J.M.B., Najera, M.J., Vazquez, F.R.S., Soto, M.L.Q., & Lirios, C.G. (2017).Perceptions about the quality and tariffs of drinking water service of Mexico City users.Education and Social Development,11(2), 20-31.

Google Scholar

Avila, F., & Ávila, C. (2012). Power from M here to v e l o Foucault. Journal of Social Sciences, 18, 367-380.

Bermudez-Ruíz, G., Molina-Ruíz, H.D., & García-Lirios, C. (2021). Modelling organizational violence in the Covid-19 era.Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences,24(4).

Google Scholar

Fuentes, J.A.A., Guillén, J.C., Lirios, C.G., Valdés, J.H., & Ferrusca, F.J.R. (2016).Governance of sociopolitical attitudes.New Era Rural Perspectives, (27), 107-148.

Garcia-Lirios, C. (2021a).Meta-analysis of perceived safety in public transport in the Covid-19 era.Mathematical Echo,12(1).

Cross Ref

Garcia-Lirios, C. (2021b).Tutorial networks in the elaboration of the research protocol.Communication, Culture and Politics,12.

Google Scholar

Guillen, J.C., Valdés, J.H., & Lirios, C.G. (2014).Empirical test of an agenda setting model.University Record,24(3), 50-62.

Google Scholar

Irises, C.G. (2020).Dimensional meta-analysis of trust: implications for social communication of covid-19.QUOTES,6(1).

Cross Ref

Lirios, CG, Guillén, JC, & Valdés, JH (2017).Governance of human development: Contrasting a model of the perceptual determinants of the intention to use the Internet in users of a public library in Mexico City.Interconnecting Knowledge, (3), 39-56.

Google Scholar

Lirios, CG, Mojica, EB, Ugarte, AB, Rincón, OC, & González, MM (2021).Contrast a pattern of domestic violence in the era of covid-19.Journal of Academic Research without Border: Division of Economic and Social Sciences, (35), 13-13.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Martinez-Munoz, E., Sanchez-Sanchez, A., & Garcia-Lirios, C. (2019).Governance of quality of life and subjective well-being.Spirit of the Scientific Dissemination Organ of the Department of Psychology UCBSP,17(1), 121-139.

Google Scholar

Mejia, A. (2011).Rawls, from justice to law as a political subject.Ideas and Values,60(147), 143-152.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Molina Ruiz, H.D., Martinez Munoz, E., Bustos Aguayo, J.M., Juarez Nájera, M., & Garcia Lirios, C. (2019).Peri-urban socio-environmental representations.Education, 26(54), 05-1

Google Scholar

Molina, M.R., Coronado, O., Garcia, C., & Quiroz, C.Y. (2021). Contrast a model security perception in the Covid-19 era.Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health Care,8(1), 77-83.

Google Scholar

Sanchez, J.T., Valero, B.J., Alina, J.A.C., & Lopez, E.V. (2021). Impact of humanistic training on the tourism future professional.Ciencia Digital,5(4), 114-128.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Sandoval-Vazquez, F.R., Aguayo, J.M.B., & Garcia-Lirios, C. (2021).Local development in the post covid-19 era.Huasteca Science Scientific Bulletin of the High School of Huejutla,9(18), 17-22.

Google Scholar

White, V.S., & de la Fuente, J.R. (2010).Public opinion and deliberative democracy.An update in the digital context of the network society.Ponto-e-Vírgula: Journal of Social Sciences, (8).

Received: 07-Mar-2022, Manuscript No. ASMJ-22-11467; Editor assigned: 10-Mar-2022, PreQC No. ASMJ-22-11467(PQ); Reviewed: 24-Mar-2022, QC No. ASMJ-22-11467; Revised: 26-Jul-2022, Manuscript No. ASMJ-22-11467(R); Published: 02-Aug-2022