Gatekeeping (communication)

As a gatekeeper ( German: Gatekeeper or lock-keeper ) is called in the social sciences metaphorical one (usually human) influence factor which occupies an important position in a decision-making process.

With the term journalistic gatekeeping function of the mass media is to be determined. With the advent of the Internet, particularly its collaborative applications such as blogs, online forums and networks, the gatekeeper function of the mass media, however, set in their effect increasingly ineffective.

Coinage by Walter Lippmann

The influential American journalist, writer and media critic Walter Lippmann coined the term gatekeeper for journalists. Gatekeeper would decide: What is withheld from the public what is being conveyed? " Every newspaper is when it reaches the reader, the result of a whole series of selections ... " By the selection rules of the conformist journalists are largely the same, so comes about a consonance in reporting, as a confirmation acts on the audience (all say it, so it must be true ) and those described above stereotypes -based pseudo- environment installed in the minds of the audience.

Factors

Basically, there are two groups of gatekeeper factors:

Research

The gatekeeper Research was established in 1950 by David M. White, is within the communication science to the field of journalism research.

The gatekeeper research tries to find out which properties of individual journalists or their respective media organization influence the selection of news. Gatekeeping denotes the limit of the amount of information by selecting deemed worthy of communication topics.

We can distinguish three approaches:

Development of Gatekeeper Research

Individualized studies

The gatekeeper approach goes back to the American social psychologist Kurt Lewin, who originally investigated decision-making processes regarding the use of food in families.

David Manning White ( 1950) transferred the approach to the message hand signals. According to Manning White are gatekeepers in the mass media individuals who hold positions within a mass medium in which they can decide on the admission or rejection of a potential communication unit. It is assumed here that the personal likes and dislikes, interests and attitudes of the journalists themselves - consciously or unconsciously - reflected in the selection of news.

In his study, Manning White investigated these hypotheses with a "Wire Editor " (Agency - editor, he decides which agency reports are included in the paper and which are not). The in the study as "Mr. For 25 years Gates " kryptonymisierte editor working for an American daily newspaper with a circulation of 30,000 in a city of about 100,000 inhabitants. In the study, three methods were used:

The investigation period was a week in February 1949. Mr. Gates ' newspaper was referring to the service of three news agencies (Associated Press, United Press International and News Service ). Only 10% of the agency reports were printed in the newspaper. Preferably chose Mr. Gates from political issues. Against human interest and crime reports harbored Mr.Gates contrast, a dislike. Manning White concludes that the news selection of Mr. Gates was held in an active manner according to subjective criteria.

Paul B. Snider (1967 ) resulted in the same study, 16 years later with the same protagonists again by. Mr. Gates had at that time only one agency for selecting (Associated Press). Now 33% of the agency reports were adopted. Snider looks like Manning White subjective selection criteria but additionally craftsmanship criteria. He largely confirmed the results of Manning White, Mr. Gates selection is according to subjective criteria in an active way instead.

Paul M. Hirsch ( 1977) falls on renewed analysis on the results of Manning White ( 1950) and Snider (1967 ), that Mr. Gates ' selection is based on the range of agencies. Thus, in both studies the distribution of posts by topic, on Mr. Gates nearly the same structure as the range of the respective agency reports during the investigation period. Hirsch therefore sees Mr. Gates less active role. His analysis provides further smaller-scale "objective" criteria on Mr. Gates news selection in the foreground.

Hirsch's observations that the output is input-oriented by the news agencies also confirmed in further studies (eg, McCombs, Maxwell E. / Shaw, Donald L. (1976 ), Whitney, Charles D. / Becker, Lee B. ( 1982) ).

It can therefore be assumed that the influence of a single gatekeeper is less than that assumed by Manning White and Snider.

The study by Walter Gieber (1956 ) builds a bridge to the institutional approach. Gieber extended the approach of Manning White on 16 "Wire Editor ". Again, it is confirmed that the actual gatekeeper seem to be the agencies. He also recognizes that the editors of " mechanically verrichteter detail straitjacket " stuck in a. Above all, offer, time pressure and lack of space will determine the choice and not subjective predispositions.

The approach stems from Giebers results that the gatekeeper involved working in the social and functional system of the editorial is elaborated in institutional studies. Giebers study therefore also partly the institutional studies is attributed.

At the individual approach is therefore also criticized that social determinants arising from the position of gatekeeper as a member of a media organization will not be considered. Be disregarded hierarchies, routines and production processes. Another point of criticism is that only one level of the message flow is investigated.

Institutional studies

At the institutional studies of the journalist is considered no longer embedded as an independent individual, but in an organizational context ( eg, medium). The " News bureaucracy " so influenced the selection behavior of journalists. Stronger influence as a gatekeeper have the news agencies (W. Gieber, 1976). The journalist is often the last resort after many other gatekeepers (even the original source (eg a witness ) can already act selectively ).

Cybernetic studies

Cybernetic studies also consider the importance of mass media for the entire system (eg, Robinson, 1970). Gatekeeper are controlled by " feedback loops " outside the newsroom.

A theoretical development of the gatekeeper approach is found in the framing discussion again.

Selection and reduction behavior of the gatekeeper in the message flow

• Personal Settings: News selection depends on political and social attitudes (eg Manning White ( 1950); Gieber (1956 ); Wilke / Rosenberger (1991)), as well as personal likes and dislikes of the gatekeeper from (eg Manning White ( 1950); Wilke / Rosenberger (1991)).
• Audience orientation: notions of the needs and desires of the audience are more diffuse ( eg Manning White ( 1950); Gieber (1956 ), Snider (1967 ) ).
• Range of news agencies: in a mechanical selection process ( selection of news often follows the agency material (eg Manning White ( 1950);; Whitney / Becker (1982)) and occurs more passive ( Hirsch ( 1977), for example, McCombs / Shaw ( 1976) ) eg Gieber (1956 ) ).
• Colleagues Orientation: choice depends often on the reference group of colleagues in their own editors (eg Breed 1955a ) and other newspapers (eg Breed ( 1955b ) ).
• Editorial line: selection follows the editorial line (eg Manning White ( 1950); Breed ( 1955) ) and is both political and economic interests of the editor / publisher coined (eg Gieber (1956 ) ).
• Organisational and technical constraints: selection is often under time and pressure of competition and is aimed at the available space (for example, Gieber (1956 ); Wilke / Rosenberger (1991)).