Gatekeeper (news research)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the social sciences, a gatekeeper (German: gatekeeper , lock keeper or doorman ) is metaphorically a (mostly personal) influencing factor that takes on an important position in a decision-making process.

The term gatekeeping is intended to determine the journalistic effectiveness of the mass media. With the advent of the Internet, especially its collaborative applications such as blogs , online forums and networks , the gatekeeper function of the mass media is increasingly being overridden.

Term coined by Walter Lippmann

The influential American journalist , writer and media critic Walter Lippmann coined the term gatekeeper for journalists . Gatekeepers decide: What is withheld from the public, what is passed on? "Every newspaper, when it reaches the reader, is the result of a whole series of selections ..."

The drifting apart of public opinion and published opinion occurs when the selection rules of journalists largely coincide. This creates a consonance of reporting that acts like a confirmation to the audience (everyone says it, so it has to be right). This installs a stereotype-supported pseudo-environment in the minds of the audience.

Factors

There are basically two groups of gatekeeper factors:

  1. Information filtering and reduction . In newspapers , for example, only about 10 percent of all incoming agency reports are reproduced; There are various studies for this, u. a. von Kuhlmann ( 1957 ).
  2. Editing and modification . Factual reasons (lack of space) as well as personal or social considerations, the value climate of the media organization, the editorial status etc. can act as filter factors.

research

The Gatekeeper research was in 1950 by David Manning White founded and belongs within the communication science to the field of journalism research .

Gatekeeper research tries to find out which characteristics of the individual journalist or the respective media organization influence the selection of news. Gatekeeping describes the limitation of the amount of information by selecting topics that are considered worthy of communication.

Three approaches can be distinguished:

  1. Individualistic studies
  2. Institutional Studies
  3. Cybernetic Studies

Gatekeeper Research Development

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) carried the approach to news delivery. According to White, gatekeepers in the mass media are individuals who hold positions within a mass medium in which they can decide whether to accept or reject a potential communication unit. It is assumed that the journalist's personal likes and dislikes, interests and attitudes - consciously or unconsciously - are reflected in the news selection.

In his study, White examined these theses using a “wire editor” (agency editor, he decides which agency reports are included in the newspaper and which not). In the study as "Mr. Gates' cryptonymized editor worked for an American daily newspaper with a circulation of 30,000 in a city of approx. 100,000 inhabitants for 25 years. Three methods were used in the study:

  1. Input-output analysis (received agency material to used agency material)
  2. Copy test (Mr. Gates noted the reason for rejection on the back of the rejected messages)
  3. Interview (Mr. Gates was asked four questions about his understanding of the profession)

The investigation period was one week in February 1949. Mr. Gates' newspaper was served by three news agencies ( Associated Press , United Press and International News Service ). Only 10% of the agency reports were printed in the newspaper. Mr. Gates preferred to select political and human interest topics. Mr. Gates, on the other hand, had an aversion to crime reports. White concludes that Mr. Gates' news selection was based on subjective criteria in an active manner.

Paul B. Snider (1967) carried out the same study again 16 years later with the same protagonist. Mr. Gates only had one agency to choose from at the time (Associated Press). Now 33% of the agency reports have been taken over. Like White, Snider sees subjective selection criteria but also technical criteria. He largely confirms the results of Manning White, Mr. Gate's selection takes place according to subjective criteria in an active manner.

Paul M. Hirsch (1977), when analyzing the results of White (1950) and Snider (1967) again, notices that Mr. Gates' selection is based on what the agencies offer. In both studies, for example, the distribution of the articles according to topic, in the case of Mr. Gates, has almost the same structure as the offer of the respective agency reports in the study period. Hirsch therefore sees Mr. Gate's role less actively. His analysis continues to emphasize rather manual “objective” criteria in Mr. Gate's news selection.

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

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

The study by Walter Gieber (1956) builds a bridge to the institutional approach. Gieber expanded White's approach to 16 “wire editors”. Here, too, it is confirmed that the actual gatekeepers seem to be the agencies. He also realizes that the editors are stuck in a “straitjacket of mechanically performed detailed work”. Above all, supply, time pressure and lack of space determine the selection and not subjective predispositions.

The approach that emerges from Gieber's results, that the gatekeeper works integrated into the social and functional system of the editorial office, is further elaborated in the institutional studies. Gieber's study is therefore also partially included in the institutional studies.

The individual approach is therefore criticized for not taking into account social determinants resulting from the gatekeeper's position as a member of a media organization. Hierarchies, work routines and production processes are disregarded. Another point of criticism is that only one stage of the message flow is examined.

Institutional Studies

In the institutional studies, the journalist is no longer viewed as an independent individual, but rather embedded in an organizational context (e.g. medium). The “news bureaucracy” thus influences the journalist's selection behavior. News agencies have a stronger influence than gatekeepers (W. Gieber, 1976). The journalist is often the last resort after many other gatekeepers (even the original source (e.g. a witness) can act selectively).

Cybernetic Studies

Cybernetic studies also take into account the importance of the mass media for the overall system (e.g. Robinson, 1970). Gatekeepers are also controlled by “feedback loops” outside the editorial office.

A theoretical further development of the gatekeeper approach can be found in the framing discussion.

Selection and reduction behavior of the gatekeepers in the message flow

  • Subjective attitudes : The choice of news depends on political and social attitudes (e.g. Manning White (1950); Gieber (1956); Wilke / Rosenberger (1991)), as well as on the personal likes and dislikes of the gatekeeper (e.g. Manning White (1950); Wilke / Rosenberger (1991)).
  • Audience orientation: ideas about the needs and desires of the audience are rather diffuse (e.g. Manning White (1950); Gieber (1956); Snider (1967)).
  • Services offered by news agencies : news selection often follows the agency material (e.g. Manning White (1950); Whitney / Becker (1982)) and is more passive (e.g. MCcombs / Shaw (1976); Hirsch (1977)) rolled into one mechanical selection process (e.g. Gieber (1956)).
  • Colleague orientation: Selection is often based on the reference group of colleagues in your own editorial office (e.g. Breed 1955a) and other newspapers (e.g. Breed (1955b)).
  • Editorial line : Selection follows the editorial line (e.g. Manning White (1950); Breed (1955)) and is shaped by both the political and economic interests of the editor / publisher (e.g. Gieber (1956)).
  • Organizational and technical constraints : Selection is often subject to time and competitive pressure and is based on the available space (e.g. Gieber (1956); Wilke / Rosenberger (1991)).

See also

literature

Individual gate-keeper approach:

  • Kurt Lewin: Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research. In: Human Relations 1, 1947, pp. 143-153.
  • David Manning White: The Gate Keeper: A Case Study in the Selection of News. In: Journalism Quarterly 27, 1950, pp. 383-390.
  • Paul B. Snider: "Mr. Gates “Revisted: A 1966 Version of the 1949 Case Study. In: Journalism Quarterly 44, 1967, pp. 416-427.
  • Paul M. Hirsch: Occupational, Organizational, and Institutional Model in Mass Media Research: Toward an Integrated Framework. In the S. u. a. (Ed.): Strategies for Communication Research. Beverly Hills, Ca. 1977, pp. 13-42.
  • Maxwell E. McCombs, Donald L. Shaw: Structuring the 'Unseen Environment'. In: Journal of Communication 26, 1976, pp. 18-22.
  • Charles D. Whitney, Lee B. Becker: 'Keeping the Gates' for Gatekeepers. The Effects of Wire News. In: Journalism Quarterly 59, 1982, pp. 60-65.
  • Walter Gieber: Across the Desk: A Study of 16 Telegraph Editors. In: Journalism Quarterly 33, 1956, pp. 423-432.

Institutional gate-keeper approach:

  • Jürgen Wilke, Bernhard Rosenberger: The news maker. On the structures and working methods of news agencies using the example of AP and dpa. Böhlau, Cologne 1991.
  • Warren Breed: Social Control in the Newsroom: A Functional Analysis. In: Social Forces 33, 1955, pp. 326–336 (German: Social control in the editorial office: A functional analysis. In: Jörg Aufermann et al. (Ed.): Social communication and information, Vol. II, Frankfurt a. M . 1973, pp. 365-378).
  • Lewis Donohew: Newspaper Gatekeepers and Forces in the News Channel. In: Public Opinion Quarterly 31, 1967, pp. 61–68 (German: Determinants in the news channel of daily newspapers. In: Bernhard Badura et al. (Ed.): Sociology of Communication. Stuttgart 1972, pp. 109–118).
  • Clarice N. Olien, George A. Donohue, Phillip J. Tichenor: The Community Editor's Power and the Reporting of Conflict. In: Journalism Quarterly 45, 1968, pp. 243-252.
  • Jean S. Kerrik, Thomas Anderson, Luita B. Swales: Balance and the Writer's Attitude in News Stories and Editorials. In: Journalism Quarterly 41, 1964, pp. 207-215.
  • Rudolf Gerhard, Hans Mathias Kepplinger , Marcus Mauer: Climate change. Internal press freedom is at risk, say newspaper editors. IfP journalist survey (2004), presentation of selected results. In: FAZ No. 74, March 31, 2005, p. 40.
  • Rüdiger Schulz: One against all? The decision-making behavior of publishers and editors-in-chief. In: Hans Matthias Kepplinger (Ed.): Adapted outsiders. What journalists think and how they work. Freiburg 1979, pp. 166-188.
  • Warren Breed: Newspaper "Opinion Leaders" and Processes of Standardization. In: Journalism Quarterly 32, 1955, pp. 277-284, p. 328.

Cybernetic gate-keeper approach:

  • Gertrude Joch Robinson: 25 years of “gatekeeper” research. A critical review and evaluation. In: Jörg Aufermann (Ed.): Social Communication and Information, Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main 1973, pp. 344–355.
  • Gertrude Joch Robinson: Foreign News Selection is Non-Linear in Yugoslavia's Tanjug Agency. In: Journalism Quarterly 47, 1970, pp. 340-355.
  • George A. Bailey, Lawrence W. Lichty: Rough Justice on a Saigon street: A Gatekeeper Study of NBS's Tet Execution Film. In: Journalism Quarterly 49, 1972, pp. 221-229, 238.

Online gatekeeper

  • Search engines as gatekeepers in public communication: legal requirements for openness and transparency in search engines in the WWW / Wolfgang Schulz; Thorsten Held; Arne Laudien. Vistas, Berlin 2005, ISBN 3-89158-408-3 .

Web links

Search engines as gatekeepers:

News editors as gatekeepers:

Elimination of the gatekeeper monopoly of journalists:

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Lippmann Walter: Public Opinion (1922), German: The public opinion. Brockmeyer, Bochum 1990.
  2. ↑ Gertrude Joch Robinson: Twenty-five Years of Gatekeeper Research: A Critical Review and Assessment. In: Jörg Aufermann, Hans Bohrmann, Rolf Sülzer (eds.): Social communication and information. Vol. 1. Athenaeum, Frankfurt a. M. 1973, pp. 345-355.
  3. ↑ Michael Kunczik, Astrid Zipfel: Publizistik. A study manual. Böhlau, Cologne a. a. 2005, p. 243f.