by Kendyl Salcito
Journalists have long considered themselves the gatekeepers of news
and information for the public. Indeed, whether self-imposed or not,
some form of gatekeeping seems unavoidable in journalism. In any newspaper,
magazine, or news broadcast, an editor judges which stories are appropriate,
which sources are credible, which quotes are valuable, and so on.
Stephen Colbert’s Bush and White House
Press Corp roast. Photo from Wikipedia, stillframe from C-SPAN television.
Gatekeeping in early journalism history was not
considered a serious editorial problem, because it was assumed that
almost anyone could operate a press and express views. When presses
became expensive and moguls created major news organizations, the
problem of gatekeeping arose.
Gatekeeping -- as a system of rules, editorial checks and other
verificational processes -- became important to journalism ethics
with the rise of the modern newspaper in the late 19th century,
when papers advertised claims of their objectivity and factual in
news reporting. In this context, gatekeeping became a norm of responsible
reporting, where editors and journalists checked their reports for
facts and balance. Only by the mid-1900s, when concerns arose about
media power and concentration, did analysts begin to see gatekeeping
as potentially harmful to journalism and to democracy.
With the advent of the internet, has information flow been freed
from the gatekeepers of mainstream news media? Or has news become
compromised, barely distinguishable from rumor and gossip? The news
media’s gatekeeping role used to dictate the newsworthiness
of an event – in terms of its importance and also its validity.
The rise of the internet has, to resort to an often-used metaphor,
left gate keepers guarding their gates while the rest of the wall
crumbles away. Since the news media can no longer monitor what does
and does not reach the public sphere, the task of gatekeeping has
become more methodological and analytical, stressing the verification
of facts and the reliability of sources.
Description of the problems
The fundamental ethical problems stem from both the existence of
gatekeeping mechanisms and the deterioration thereof. These problems
are perhaps best exemplified in two case studies. The first, a case
of excessive media gatekeeping, arises in Myanmar (formerly Burma).
The other, a case of disenfranchised gatekeepers, arises in the
United States. The relative powerlessness of North American gatekeepers
engenders the risk that news media may lack authority even to counteract
false rumors spread in the blogosphere and on partisan websites.
BURMA – Gatekeeping at its Strongest
The Burmese news media consists almost entirely of government-sponsored
(and censored) publications and broadcasts. Editors-censors rid
international articles of any ‘unwanted’ information
before printing or airing them. Burmese journalists have learned
to self-censor rather than risk harsh punishment and firing. The
result is a media of one gate, rigorously guarded. There are no
bloggers in Myanmar, as internet use is restricted to government-monitored
non-web email and a few token websites approved by the government.
Yahoo, Google, and NYTimes.com are unknown entities in Myanmar.
The system is highly effective for the information-disseminators,
because the precise message they hope to relay to the public is
in fact relayed impeccably (though not always credibly). Obviously,
however, this micromanagement severely hampers a free press.
Recently, a Burmese expatriate refugee group (The Democratic Voice
of Burma) based in Europe began broadcasting a Burmese-language
television and radio show from Norway into Myanmar. Though DVB is
in its own right a gatekeeper, submitting only its pre-selected
information to the airwaves, the new gate it created provides an
alternate viewpoint from the government-supported broadcasts. Destruction
(albeit partial) of the gatekeeping mechanism is providing a portion
of the Burmese population with the means and mindset for discourse.
In this extreme example of gatekeeping, it is clear that when the
gates are breached, diverse ideas and discussions can arise. Some
analysts feel that democracy can be empowered as gatekeepers fade
away. As more voices fill the public sphere, replacing the old --
and few -- voices of authority, the diversity of popular opinion
becomes the new basis for thought and analysis. In that regard,
it may seem that the role of gatekeeper is obsolete and should be
eradicated. But recent events in the United States, such as those
during the 2004 presidential election, suggest that gatekeeping
is still important, in some forms.
The United States – Gatekeeping at its Weakest?
A number of incidents in the United States exemplify the risks of
a media without gatekeepers. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentiel, in their
book Warp Speed, used the Monica Lewinsky affair to illustrate the
shift in news gatekeeping in the internet age. Within the first
chapter, Rosentiel and Kovach assert that the unverified reporting
on President’s sexual affair with the White House intern showed
that “there are no more gatekeepers.” Anything is publishable
because anyone can publish a blog. Taken a step further, as political
author James B. Stuart does, the gatekeepers are those who, “armed
with the technology of the internet,” produce their stories
with extraordinary speed, without “filtering information on
grounds of taste, relevance, or accuracy.” In 2004, the consequences
of weak gatekeeping were evident in a rumor, spread by Matt Drudge,
that the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, had an affair
with a female journalist. The Wall Street Journal, the British tabloid
The Sun, and the National Review (not to mention countless bloggers)
took the Kerry rumor at face value, spreading it, unsubstantiated,
among their readers. However, to their credit, several mainstream
media outlets adhered to their journalistic principles and ignored
the story until Alexandra Polier, the alleged “other woman,”
denied the rumor.
Not all journalists continue to adhere to the role and standards
of gatekeeper. Hard evidence is sometimes hard to come by, and some
journalists have shirked their journalistic responsibilities to
build a story where facts are scarce. Some of the U.S. news coverage
in the wake of the Katrina hurricane of 2005 exemplifies this failure.
According to Henry W. Fischer III, the Director of the Center for
Disaster Research and Education at Millersville University in Pennsylvania:
"The bigger and more diffuse the disaster, the more the gatekeeping
function of the media fails in the rush to get the story out."
Katrina coverage was rife with rumor, and wild death-toll estimates,
many of which originated in online accounts provided by bloggers.
However, bloggers and citizen-journalists are in a position to improve
the quality of news and criticize the news media for shortfalls
in their information-gathering and reporting. They help circulate
information that the mainstream media could miss. Such was the case
in the wake of the assassination of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn
in May 2002. The traditional news media labeled Fortuyn “anti-Muslim,”
“hard right wing,” and “the Dutch [equivalent
of France’s fascist candidate] Jean Marie Le Pen” even
as they called his assassination a tragedy. The harsh labels overlooked
Fortuyn’s actual political platform, though. Web writers (particularly
Adam Curry www.curry.com ) brought a valuable alternative perspective
to light, describing the much more complicated issues that Fortuyn
addressed, including deep concern for Muslim women’s rights,
apprehension about the open-minded nature of Dutch society (he was
gay) in the face of a hugely conservative Islamic influx, and a
basic culture clash. Curry’s blog explained that Fortuyn “never
called for a ‘Ban on immigration’ or ‘Removal
of Muslims’. ... What Pim did do, was start the public debate
about immigration and the standard of living in the Netherlands,
which is the second most densely populated country in the world.”
Whether one agrees with Curry or not, bloggers like him can provide
more information and perspective on news and issues.
Novel Uses of Gatekeeping
Journalist-bloggers lend credibility to their online discourses
by providing links to websites containing their raw data and references
(e.g. a Gallup poll cited in an article will include a hyperlink
to the poll results). At the same time, they frequently add hyperlinks
that send readers to the top US daily newspapers and news agencies
such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and the
Associated Press, thus almost re-evoking the gatekeepers.
Gatekeeping has taken on an intriguing new shape in the form of
Britain’s new Channel 4 online news shows. Beginning in October,
2005, Channel 4 is broadcasting soft news shows strictly online.
The topics thus far are special-interest (cars, fashion, technology
and the like), so their news value is limited at this point. The
novelty is the format: the shows are in chapter format, so viewers
can pick and choose what they want to watch. Enabling viewers to
become their own gatekeepers in broadcast journalism could have
positive and/or negative results. Possibly the public gatekeeping
will enable news broadcasters to broaden their sphere of coverage
and target a wider audience. Equally probable, however, online broadcasters
could opt to cut the less-visited news chapters on their online
shows, thus limiting the scope of broadcast news.
Steve Yelvington, internet strategist, on the “death”
of gatekeeping and the tasks that remain in its stead for journalists http://www.yelvington.com/item.php?id=588
