Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/70926

Title

Rethinking gatekeeping

Author(s)

Rickard, Scott

Abstract

Media research has long given special attention to the notion of a ‘gatekeeper’. With established mass media the gatekeeper came in many guises — as a managing editor, copy editor or in some cases a lawyer — each of whom could influence (or decide) what got published and in what form. Or even decide that material would not become available through them to wider publics. The role of gatekeepers has also been tied to the notion of Agenda Setting, particularly with newspapers, who can frame major issues as to what becomes news. However with the advent of the Internet the content paradigm of institutional power has been turned upside down and users have become increasingly empowered to get their own content out to wider publics. These are well established issues of concern related to the notion of gate keeping and most scholars and students of media content analysis have come to use the term gatekeeper in disparaging ways. However this paper calls for a re-think of the term in the light of new aspects of the alleged information revolution. While editorial control held by traditional gatekeepers presented its own problems, a lack of gatekeeping throws the user into a maelstrom of videos, text, and animations, without any idea as to their quality, authenticity or relevance. StumbleUpon is an example of one of the many personal recommendation sites offering nominal organisation such as genre, member recommendations and popularity for websites within the maelstrom. However one could argue, StumbleUpon is simply at heart a basic gatekeeper. A gatekeeper, this paper argues that relies on a different form of editorial control — its’ members. The challenge now is to consider how user generated content fits within a gatekeeper model. The openness, ease of use and low cost of social networking and social media sites have encouraged participation and successfully built large membership bases which are hard to duplicate in gatekeeper models. Membership based communities are also outside traditional gatekeeper control. Users visit membership communities directly, bypassing any controls of traditional gatekeepers. Most importantly membership communities offer space for sharing independent peer opinion and advice which circumvents the traditional gatekeeper process. In a plot twist, gatekeepers have made it possible for their content to be posted into membership communities. This paper asks ‘Does the success in including participatory media models lie in subverting control?’ In the past users had to delegate control and place trust in gatekeepers, so does including participatory media on gatekeeper sites mean finding ways to delegate control to users? Should gatekeeping exist? No gatekeeping would allow a free flow of any information and offer users complete transparency. Is this an option? This is a conundrum that needs urgent attention. It is not only membership communities that are challenging the roles of gatekeepers, technology is as well. For example, in Australia the rush is on to negotiate alliances between television networks and ISPs in relation to unmetered content. This can only be a result of an increase in broadband uptake and the impending roll out of the National Broadband Network. This rush foreshadows the challenges to come. What shape might gatekeepers take in the future? How will they incorporate the challenges of participatory media?

Publication type

Conference paper

Research centre

Swinburne University of Technology

Source

Proceedings of the Communications Policy and Research Forum (CPRF), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 19-20 November 2009, pp. 275-280

Publication year

2009

Keyword(s)

Australia;  Editorial control;  Media content;  Participatory media models;  User generated content

Publisher

Network Insight Institute

ISBN

9780980434422

Publisher URL

http://www.networkinsight.org/events/cprf09.html

Copyright

Copyright © 2009 Scott Rickard.

Peer reviewed