Where Are The Gatekeepers?
Eric Fehrnstrom gives an account of what Republican candidates faced from netroots activists in 2008 and in closing asks:
Where are the online gatekeepers? Gatekeeping is the most important function for the offline media. Editors decide which stories get published. They make sure rumors aren’t printed. Sensitive information is double- and sometimes triple-sourced. Gatekeeping serves an important purpose in establishing the ethics of journalism. Sadly, it doesn’t exist on the Web.
What can be done? Citizen-journalists and bloggers need to provide links to websites that contain factual data backing up their assertions. These connections add credibility. And while Internet libel suits can be difficult to win, they should be pursued more often.
Moreover, it would help if TV and newspapers resisted the temptation to get edgier in their own reporting. If you can’t be “first” with the rumors, be first with the most comprehensive and factual account. In the current Wild West state of political reporting, you will be rewarded with loyal readership in search of honest and objective coverage.
He’s not entirely wrong, though I think it’s naive to believe that many bloggers and other citizen-journalists will put forth that extra effort to confirm the facts of what they’re writing before the jump. And that no one expects it from the other side means they won’t raise themselves up to provide it on their side. Fire with fire. But we have got to break from that mold.
As the internet comes of age in how its used during campaigns, more and more people are going to be asking the same question though: where are the gatekeepers? What has gotten blogging and online activism this far is the lack of a gatekeeper – thousands of voices shouting so many things that once in a while one sticks. Or a bunch of people starting to talk about the same thing, creating a story where there wouldn’t be one normally.
The media has proven to be gullible to these tactics. But they’re starting to get burned, and a lot of blogging talking heads who try to sound and act professional but end up putting their foot in their mouth are going to find themselves locked out.
Since blogging’s not about to go away, gatekeepers will emerge as people realize who make up the cream of the crop and those people are promoted. These individuals will be the self-policiers who put function before form and seek out the facts before fame.
This may take time, though. Blogging is still new in terms of impact on media and elections. Everyone is still getting a feel for how it works and what place citizen-jouralists hold in the conversation.
It’s up to the citizen-journalist to help properly define their role, not by words but by acts.
I thought the whole premise of online media (blogs) was that there WERE no gatekeepers, and the reader is on his own. Let’s not forget that there’s a downside to the kind of status quo gatekeeping practiced by the mainstream outlets (insular relationships with institutions, an emphasis on milquetoast, lowest common denominator commentary and analysis, and a not-too-far-below-the-surface disdain for the average reader, not infrequent bias). There are gatekeepers in the blogosphere; the problem is that the nationally renowned market they operate in and vie for is less and less important to many readers as the “long tail” school of journalism establishes itself. Gatekeeping may have been an honorable tradition (though I doubt it) but it was always a result of a monopoly on the gates, not an authentic market phenomenon.
Jeremy – I think that you can’t buy into the long tail on the whole. Influentials still drive a lot of discussions and issues and they also exist in citizen-journalism. Gatekeepers are a good way to measure validity and truth behind things, but one thing blogging allows is a potential reassessment of its gatekeepers time to time, based not on whether or not they’re popular but whether or not they are really representing the quality product blogs can deliver.
Ultimately, the media is going to fish less and rely more on gatekeeping outlets and prove themselves. You’ll see less instances of CNN talking to “a blogger from blogspot.com” (really happened, really dumb) and more instances of blogs that treat what they do seriously being taken seriously themselves.
“I think it’s naive to believe that many bloggers and other citizen-journalists will put forth that extra effort to confirm the facts of what they’re writing before the jump.”
Bloggers & email-forwarders of that ilk don’t care what the facts are, the fun seems to be in just how nasty it can be. This should come back to bite the ass of any of the high-profile bloggers that get caught up in it.
The blogosphere is the last frontier of the wild and wacky world of information, accurate or otherwise. We are today where the yellow journalism of days past was, where anything goes and let the reader beware. But just as that time passed, so, too, will this. And it will be the bloggers themselves who make these choices, because without any ethical standards, no one will take them seriously.
Of course – the question is whether they have the ability to erect a “gate” in the first place. In other words, using what shared set of interests, values, and narratives can one erect a gate when people can just as easily walk around it if they disagree? The problem is that there isn’t a gate that holds people back, nor a gate whose integrity the people will voluntarily respect.
I think you give too much credence to the Arthur Schlessinger fairy tale of a journalistic standard. That was a fleeting, artificial construct brought about by an era of consolidated, corporate media. It gave the false sense that there is such a thing as a single national mood / tone / standard / debate / etc. – in other words, that there was something above and beyond individuals worth influencing. Now that a huge chunk of everyday people’s interactions are documented and easily disseminated, the media’s offering is just a really well-run version of what we do. They might be able to distinguish themselves – but it will be in the areas they excel, such as basic fact provision (like the old days) as opposed to all the “analysis” and “human interest” bullshit they feed us now. Holograms will not save them.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think blogging will change the world or anything, either. But the dream of a national conversation groomed to perfection is toast. In real life, crazy aunt Donna participates, and she says Obama is a Muslim. If there’s an alternative to that reality, it is artificial and probably unsustainable without straight up, elitist censorship.
I’m not saying crazy aunt Donna shouldn’t participate, but there should be a level of thought and criticism that doesn’t take her word and run with it. There are many diamonds in the rough, but it’s going to take an establishment of trusted sources finding those for the public. When those trusted sources establish themselves, I think you’ll see the relevance of blogging turned on its ear because now it’s the big head influential sites who get play and the long tail guys get the scrap.
Part of this comes from the fact that the long tail is still very much taking talking points from the big head. 99.99% of what blogs discuss are either covered initially by the mainstream media or top dog websites/blogs. Whenever a long tail blog does find something new, it takes one of the influentials finding it and bringing it to the light of day for it really to break big – or a bunch of people talking about it and creating a groundswell. But that groundswell can not be expected to continue to happen or be taken seriously when it doesn’t fact check itself.
The media’s falling for it now but they won’t in the future, for better or for worse.
Or maybe we’re talking past each other. Sorry…