Gatekeeping
Gatekeeping refers directly to what content is allowed to be aired on news programs and published in magazines and newspapers. Generally the key issues regulated are sex, violence, and language. Technology as well as an increasingly impatient public desireing ever-more explicit material is eroding the gatekeeping function of these old media outlets. Editors are giving into a desire for profits as blogs present information often completely devoid of fact-checking. At the heart of this gatekeeping issue is the responsibility of journalists to present the facts but in a fashion that is accessible and respectful of the general public.
Bellow is two articles, each discussing the current nature of gatekeeping in Journalism.
“
LexisNexis™ Academic
Copyright 2006 Central News Agency All Rights Reserved
Central News Agency -
LENGTH: 296 words
HEADLINE:
BYLINE: Chris Wang
DATELINE:
BODY:
The media should accommodate itself to modem technology and "citizen journalism, " while still being accountable to its "gatekeeping" responsibility, British Broadcasting Corporation (
Because of modern technology such as mobile phones, handy cams and the Internet, there is much more first-hand information coming to the media directly from citizens. The media needs to move with this trend but should still check and validate sources, said Gowing.
Gowing, who was invited by the British Chamber of Commerce in Taipei to deliver a speech at its monthly luncheon, has been the main anchor on
In covering the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane Katrina's damage in the United States and the London Underground bombing, the media resorted to citizens to provide first-hand information and observations, he said, adding that following the bombings in London, the
Nowadays, he said, citizens often provide more information following major news events than the media, which in turn provides more information than government agencies most of the time.
"The job of people like me or other
News reporting today has "higher impact and shorter time frame" because of the information explosion and development of technology, which makes it even more important for the media to provide correct reporting, Gowing said.
“Inform or Inflame?; When Net Bares It All, Can Mainstream media Maintain standards and survive?” discusses how newspapers are supposed to be family-friendly, accurate, and truthful. Writer, Jesse Leavenworth, specifically discusses the media’s coverage of the sex scandal involving former Representative Mark Foley. He speaks with some pride how the Courant refused to print the “salacious details” associated with the incident, in effect saying that this type of coverage elevated newspapers beyond blogs. He did not however rule out the adjustment of gatekeeper functions.
LexisNexis™ Academic
Copyright 2006 The Hartford Courant Company All Rights Reserved
SECTION:
LENGTH: 1460 words
HEADLINE: INFORM OR INFLAME?;
WHEN
BYLINE: JESSE
BODY:
For newspaper readers seeking explicit details on the Mark Foley scandal n beyond reports of "inappropriate" or "over friendly" e-mails to teenage boys n the scoop was a click away.
The Internet provided complete transcripts of the former congressman's messages, including comments about the size of one boy's penis and his "cute butt bouncing in the air."
The Courant and other daily newspapers did not print those details, but the response to the posting showed that many people were wondering how far Foley had crossed the line and the level of impropriety the Republican leadership might be covering up.
The Foley story is the latest example of the erosion of mainstream media's gatekeeping role. Editors still block sexually explicit and violent content, deciding how much detail readers and viewers need. But the Internet has blown the gates open, and editors, with their increasingly impotent red pencils, have seen readers rush past them into the wide open Web to find out for themselves what "salacious" means.
"I think if they're smart, [mainstream newspapers] are going to change," said Bob Norman, a columnist for New Times, an alternative newspaper in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. "I'm not saying they have to print all the salacious details, but I think if they're going to keep up with the general trend of keeping more real, toward telling the truth no matter how ugly it might be, they're going to have to change.
"Otherwise,"
Even in the face of the Internet's ever-expanding info-ocean, however, Norman and other journalists said mainstream media must adhere to standards.
"I believe most editors want and need to stay in the comfort zone of their audience and themselves," Scott Bosley, executive director of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, wrote in an e-mail. "In fact, you can explain most everything in rational terms that readers understand "without violating that zone.J1
"I don't believe newspapers are obligated to reach the lowest common denominator. I don't think readers feel deprived. Readers respect newspapers for having standards. If their respect and trust in us is violated, we lose more than we gain."
"There have always been print publications willing to use more explicit words and photos on a regular basis than a general-circulation newspaper will allow them," Kate Perry, Minneapolis Star Tribune reader representative, wrote in an e-mail. "So, it's no surprise that's also true on the Web. That's been an advantage to most newspapers in the past because readers could rely on them for the kind of judgment and restraint with language that they seek in publications that come into their home daily and that their families read .... [At the Star Tribune], explicit language is not used gratuitously, only when essential to the news. Depending on the word, the bar can be extremely high."
The bar for The Courant also has been high, but some stories have included explicit language and details. For example, the newspaper has printed a four-letter vulgarity for sexual intercourse eight times in the past nine years, as recently as December 2004. Also, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was ripping into the Clinton White House, The Courant ran a special section in 1998 with details about oral sex in the Oval Office.
That doesn't mean, however, that newspapers should print video stills of a celebrity sex romp, several journalists said.
"Given the audience of the newspaper (it's still a family medium, open for inspection by very young children and anyone else, regardless of sensitivity) it would seem appropriate to maintain a self regulated 'PG' rating," Jay Black, editor of the Journal of Mass Media Ethics, wrote in an e-mail. "There's nothing "Tong with reporters' citing the Web addresses folks could go to for further details; doing so might actually help the newspapers' credibility.
"I'm anything but a prude (I recall using the 'F' bomb in an article about a pornography conference ... my editor cut it), but a certain amount of decorum seems appropriate for a family newspaper," Black wrote.
What about violence? How does a newspaper relay the horror, for instance, of terrorists' beheading Americans? Do people need to see such images firsthand to know the enemy?
"For something as offensive as [beheadings], most news organizations chose not to show it or provide links," Gary Hill, chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists ethics committee, wrote in an email. "True, people who really wanted to see that could find it on the Internet. But I don't think most news organizations would put that image on their page, in their broadcast or even on their website.
"It's hard to argue that the news value of seeing the actual beheading outweighs the sensational, exploitative nature of the video and the harm it causes the friend and family of the victim," Hill wrote. "Most readers and viewers still expect us to make these sort of gatekeeping decisions and would be dismayed if we did not."
Hill noted, however, that ABC News played the Foley story differently on its website and broadcast. The broadcast did not include any of the overtly sexual exchanges, in large part to comply with Federal Communications Commission rules. Those rules, however, do not apply to the Internet, and the network posted the graphic exchanges on its website under warning disclaimers.
'"In this way, we continue to play the role of gatekeeper, but don't thrust potentially offensive material into our audience's faces," Hill wrote.
'"Newspapers have already defined their role for their readers," wrote John Burks, professor of journalism at
'"These traditional rules do not apply in vast regions of the new media, which is what makes the new media attractive to so many people. No hedging, no dodging of explicit details or charges that might somehow offend somebody's grandma or lead somebody's granddaughter astray. I cannot imagine the mainstream news media blowing its doors wide open, not even 'over their own dead bodies.' For better or for worse, mainstream news media is locked in place, certain of its correctitude."
Bloggers -- who have no tradition of regulating their content -- have played roles in several big stories, including the Foley affair,
Allegations about Foley's interest in teenage boys had been floating around political circles and newsrooms in
Newsweek reported in its most recent issue that scanned images of some Foley e-mails were displayed on Sept. 24 on a site called stopsexpredators.blogspot.com before breaking into the mainstream media through the ABC News website.
'" I think the Internet has liberated the very concept of news from those mainstream gatekeepers in a fundamental way," wrote Norman, the
Why have stories of such great interest -- often involving powerful national figures -- been ignored by traditional media?"
But Michael Burgi, editor of Mediaweek magazine, said reporters must continue to do the hard work of seeking the truth while maintaining a level of propriety. Bloggers, Burgi said, will not fundamentally change journalism.
"'Bloggers are people with opinions," he said. '"They are not journalists. I think blogging will cool down over time when the next big thing pops up."
'"Because so much information is available on the Internet," Karen Hunter, The Courant's reader representative, wrote in an e-mail, '"the gatekeeping role has become more demanding for responsible print publications and broadcasters as people look for reliable sources of information and sources that won't offend their sensibilities while delivering information that is important to them.
.. Should print publications and broadcasters strive to be as explicit as Internet sites can be? I say it depends on the audience they serve. The Internet will continue to challenge what is acceptable to society in general, and print publications and broadcasters will have to be nimble enough to respond to their audience's needs and tastes."
Contact Jesse Leavenworth at leavenworth@courant.com.
Agenda Setting
Agenda setting refers to the level of government and institutional influence on what is covered in newspapers and broadcasts as well as how it’s covered. Journalists have long been considered liberal, at least socially. I find this ironic. Since
Bellow is one article discussing Agenda Setting:
“A Note of Bias: ABC’s Mark Halperin Calls For A Purge of Newsrooms,” is one of the more sardonic and ironic pieces I have read on the subject of Agenda Setting. Here, a noted conservative host and blogger argues that newsrooms are staffed with liberals and need to be replaced with people like him, individuals without a political persuasion. Of course he says this on a right-wing radio station and is not known for ever saying something positive about liberals. In fact, he argues in this article that he was totally offended when someone called him a liberal. Jim Naureckas, writer of this article, counters Halperin’s statement with a very telling one of his own; “…Halperin would better serve journalism by acknowledging [his own bias] rather than appearing on right-wing talk radio to urge an ideological purge of newsrooms.”
LexisNexis™ Academic
Copyright 2007 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved Extra!
January 2007 - February 2007
LENGTH: 817 words
HEADLINE: A Note of Bias;
ABC's Mark Halperin calls for a purge of newsrooms
BYLINE: By Jim Naureckas
BODY:
Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News and the main author of the widely read daily online briefing the Note, has more influence over the political tone of mainstream journalism than virtually any other individual. In his book Lapdogs, press critic Eric Boehlert called the Note "the agenda setting morning round-up for the political class .... It's impossible to overstate the behind-the-scenes influence of the Note."
Nevertheless, when Halperin showed up to plug his new book on the show of second-string right-wing talk radio host Hugh Hewitt (10/30/06), he sounded less like a powerful media executive and more like an applicant for a job with Accuracy In Media. As Hewitt probed Halperin for signs of left-wing deviationalism, Halperin tried to establish his ideological soundness by professing his desire to purge journalism of liberals:
"We need in this country strong news organizations that are not ideologically biased, that are not staffed by liberals, and that stand up to power of all sorts .... It is not a model that works if the organizations are either biased or perceived as biased. I want to help change that. I've worked throughout my career to help change it, and that means getting liberals out of the newsroom, not replacing them with conservatives, but getting people who understand the ethos of being a journalist for an organization that is powerful enough to stand up to big interests, and earn the respect of the American people."
"Many people I work with in ABC, and other old media organizations, are liberal on a range of issues," Halperin declared. "And I think ... the reality of how that affects media coverage, is outrageous, and that conservatives in this country for 40 years have felt that, and that it's something that must change."
Despite Halperin's embrace of the conservative party line on media, Hewitt still described Halperin as "very liberal"--on the basis of his family, the college he went to, and the fact that he works for the media when writing up the interview for his blog (l0/30/06, 10/31/06). In response, Halperin wrote to Hewitt begging him not to say such a mean thing about him:
"1 really enjoyed our radio talk and 1 appreciated the opportunity to appear with someone I respect so much .... As I said on the show, you and I agree on almost everything we discussed .... As for your repeated insistence that you could reach no other conclusion but one that says that I am "very liberal," I'm sure if you think it over, you will reconsider."
Progressive blogger Glenn Greenwald (10/31106) and others have commented on what Greenwald aptly characterized as "Halperin's sad little crusade for right-wing blessings." But equally interesting is the notion of "bias" on display here. Halperin refuses to discuss his political views, insisting that he doesn't even vote. Anyone with identifiable views--particularly the "liberals" that he identifies as his colleagues--is apparently too "biased" to be taken seriously as a journalist.
But a point of view is not the same thing as a bias. Overwhelmingly, biologists have the point of view that organisms evolved through natural selection rather than being created in their present forms. But you can't on that basis charge that biology is biased against creationists; it's their weak science, not prejudice against their views, that marginalizes them in the field.
That's not to say that believing, say, that George W. Bush is doing a good job is just like believing that the earth is 6,000 years old. But if reporters who are hired in part for their expertise on politics tend to think that he's doing a bad job--even more than the average person, perhaps--that may be because he is doing a bad job, not because journalism as a profession is "biased."
An actual bias is a systematic distortion of reality. As an example, take the October 23 edition of Halperin's Note, which offered predictions about "how the (liberal) Old Media plans to cover the last two weeks of the election." Reporters, it began, would "glowingly profile Speaker-Inevitable Nancy Pelosi, with loving mentions of her grandmotherly steel (see last night's 60 Minutes), and fail to describe her as 'ultra-liberal' or 'an extreme liberal,' which would mirror the way Gingrich was painted twelve years ago."
Actually, a Nexis search for "Gingrich" within six words of "ultra-conservative" or "extreme conservative" from
So, when Halperin thinks back to the media's coverage of Gingrich in 1996, he has a clear picture-which happens to be wrong. That's bias, and Halperin would better serve journalism by acknowledging it, rather than appearing on right-wing talk radio to urge an ideological purge of newsrooms.
-----
So…is Gatekeeping faltering in today’s media? In my opinion, without a doubt. Is Agenda Setting occurring? Absolutely. And there is little else as perilous for the journalist profession.
No comments:
Post a Comment