Introduction
With the advancement of new communication technologies, gatekeeping has changed as a process. In the digital age, social media producers and consumers often assume the role of gatekeepers in deciding what information is worth publishing. A typical signature in today’s journalism is information overload, which makes it impossible for traditional and contemporary media outlets to convey everything to the public. Social media has changed the architecture of gatekeeping from conventional to a system that relies on networking. For instance, newspapers, television, and radio stations have created pages to reach their audiences and become active on social media. The shift is evident as conventional media outlets frequently share links to news items to attract viewers. This article shows that the gatekeeping role of traditional media has changed as the digital age of social media focuses primarily on the users or audience.
Gatekeeping Theory
Kurt Lewin proposed the gatekeeping theory at the turn of the popularity of traditional media in the 1940s and 1950s. Lewin (1947) states that gatekeeping is the process by which the press selects billions of information and transforms it into a smaller amount that can be distributed to the public in a given day. This theory is based on a sender-receiver relationship structure. However, this model has changed to network gatekeeping. The change is due to the production of large amounts of information, the high speed of communication, and the evolving phase of interaction on social media (Welbers, 2018). Now, relatable information with a high level of dissemination can be shared fast and easily without the need for mass communication channels. One impact of social media on the gatekeeping theory is that network gatekeeping does not require newspapers, televisions, and radios to define or regulate media content. Carvalho (2017) states that understanding this theory's new perspective involves analyzing mechanisms such as algorithmic selection of information, filter bubble, and echo chamber.
Network Gatekeeping Theory
The establishment of social media and the changes in the communication process has caused a significant functional and structural shift in the gatekeeping role of the traditional components of the media. Pałka-Suchojad (2021) states that the change has translocated the gatekeeping theory to network gatekeeping. Network gatekeeping focuses on the general population, who are the members of the digital space and the ones who generate information. This new spectrum differs from the traditional form of gatekeeping as the role is not restricted to journalists and editors. Carvalho (2017) asserts that besides newspapers, magazines, radio, and television stations, gatekeeping has become widely inclusive of government domains, internet services, search engine deliverers, organizations, and individuals. In addition, this gatekeeping emphasizes the dynamic nature of information transfer. Social media and websites are components of the digital network used to distribute information from media houses to citizens (Welbers, 2018). Therefore, it is almost impossible to have a fixed gatekeeper due to the variability of communication on social media.
The network gatekeeping theory modifies the concept of “the gate.” In this context, as Carvalho (2017) posits, “the gate” is the channel one uses to enter and exit the network. According to Wallace (2018), two things shape the network gatekeeping theory. The first one is the development of partisan media, which involves choosing and manipulating specific information to create a manner in which the news items meet the target audience's expectations. The second aspect of the theory comprises altering the focus from the source of information to the consumer. Since most consumers use social media, they become the generators of news items (Pałka-Suchojad, 2021). In this approach, therefore, organizations and individuals who use social media must constantly ascertain which information has the capacity to exist and remain in the feed. This phenomenon reflects the conceptual change in the meaning of “the gate.” Whereas traditional gatekeeping emphasizes the standard elements of mass communication, network gatekeeping fosters interpersonal interactions and engagement.
The impacts of social media on the gatekeeping theory yield the network gatekeeping theory, which is based on the modern achievements of communication. According to Wallace (2018), network gatekeeping is more relational and gives the audience more power by enabling them to seek and filter information. The new trend recognizes the role of social media users and accords them the autonomy and variety they require to produce news items, interact with others, and utilize the alternatives of the domain. The result is fundamentally enhanced and contrasts the conventional system of gatekeeping. Welbers (2018) adds that anyone can become a network administrator in the digital age by creating and developing contacts and relationships with other network users. In essence, the phenomenon confirms Carvalho’s (2017) notion that “we are all gatekeepers.” Additionally, there are two forms of network gatekeeping; centralized and decentralized. Centralized gatekeeping comprises authorities’ distribution of certain information, while decentralized gatekeeping is more opinionated and has more to do with micro-level individual user interactions (Pałka-Suchojad, 2021).
In Kurt Lewin’s traditional gatekeeping theory, the people were on the receiving end. In network gatekeeping, internet access minimizes the gatekeeping role of newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations. As (Pałka-Suchojad, 2021) points out, network gatekeeping in the era of digital media is an excellent example of “meta journalism,” whose main objective is to use network algorithms to influence the presence of new and existing information. Still, it is essential to note that making the recipients the generators and distributors of information breeds favoritism (Wallace, 2018). This is why modern media, especially social media, embraces political control in the process of collecting and disseminating information. As mentioned earlier, one attribute of the new media is that contacts and relationships determine the gates' success. The gates, in this case, are the people. Casero-Ripollés (2018) states that Twitter’s political power is evident in its ability to mobilize people.
Social Media Gatekeeping
The concept of gatekeeping in social media utilizes the network gatekeeping theory. Scholars have researched network gatekeeping since the 1980s and have always based their analysis on the diffusion of the network. Welbers (2018) asserts that the distribution of information on social media is similar to the spread of an infectious ailment. This analogy implies that there should be many direct recipients for information to be shared among the vastest portion of social media users. Also, before developing a news item, one should determine whether the recipients will pass the information to their followers and those they interact with regularly. According to Pałka-Suchojad (2021), gatekeeping in social media is somewhat the same as secondary gatekeeping and gate-watching. Further, there is a significant distinction between traditional and social media gatekeeping. The difference outlines the alternative channels of passing information available to social media users.
The impact of network and social media gatekeeping distorts the true sense of conventional gatekeeping. Ferreira (2018) demonstrates that the features of social media, such as the capacity to interact with others and participate in topics, are what make all users gatekeepers, which has caused a lousy mutation in the system. Scholars and critics of this gate-keeping structure state there are no guardians and gatekeepers in the digital social media ecosystem because there are no defined and classically comprehended gates (Wallace, 2018). For this reason, Pałka-Suchojad (2021) notes that social media users have not created or maintained their own gatekeeping roles but observe traditionally established gates. Therefore, it would be imperative to term the process of social media gatekeeping as gate-watching. Instead of generating and publishing information, gate-watchers publicize content by highlighting the source (Yang & Peng, 2020). Social media users are only guards of news items because they but perform the role of attracting recipients to specific pieces of information.
Gatekeeping in social media can take many forms. Since there is no standard model of filtering and deciding which information should reach the public, Ismail et al. (2019) assert that in the virtual community, there is a select group of users who provide another group, the consumers, with links to information. In this sense, those who hold the psychological premise, have a high level of influence, and have access to information, are the actors who are termed gatekeepers (Welbers & Opgenhaffen, 2018). Therefore, these renowned Facebook or Twitter pages conduct the role of gatekeepers in various ways. These ways include channeling information through the network, censoring specific content, and internalizing the information. Additionally, these casual social media gatekeepers manage confidential information, and determine the news items’ const-effectiveness, the level of interactivity, and the algorithmic infrastructure of the sources. Pałka-Suchojad (2021) demonstrates that these actions enable social media gatekeepers to become a significant link between network gatekeeping and traditional gatekeeping.
Lastly, given that social media operates on algorithms, it is pertinent to discuss how network gatekeeping derives its logic from the codes of particular programs within the system. In this type of gatekeeping, algorithms aim to construct a viable reality for the audience using search engine preferences and circulation mechanisms (Pałka-Suchojad, 2021). This phenomenon determines which information is necessary and which ones would not get the required traction from the consumers. Consequentially, algorithmic media has transformed the usual flow of news items. Ferreira (2018) states that algorithmization might be a new form of gatekeeping because it coordinates the distribution of information and interprets it in a way that suits a specific target audience. In other words, it considers public interest (Yang & Peng, 2020). The algorithm system of the media places a significant emphasis on the process of selecting and filtering to identify the most relevant information, which is one of the basic purposes of gatekeeping.
Conclusion
Newspapers, magazines, televisions, and radios utilize the conventional gatekeeping theory. Conversely, based on the impacts of social media on the roles of these media components, the digital media paradigm uses the network gatekeeping theory. In discussing the different aspects between the two, this study shows that the current information setting focuses on the audience. With the network gatekeeping theory, fragmentation gives citizens more freedom to choose and decide the kind of information that will be displayed on their feeds and spaces. In this regard, the traditional mode of guarding the news is undergoing a critical change phase. The analysis shows that the modern version renders the network as the gate and the consumers as the gatekeepers. Within the same context, scholars have recognized the variant as an enhanced form of gate-watching. Although these systems seem to have accomplished this function, it is evident that modern gatekeeping requires further research, specifically on the role of incorporating algorithm into the process.
References
Carvalho, L. D. L. (2017). The Case Against Fake News Gatekeeping by Social
Networks. Available at SSRN 3060686.
Casero-Ripollés, A. (2018). Research on political information and social media: Key points and
challenges for the future. Profesional de la Información, 27(5), 964-974.
Ferreira G.B. (2018). Gatekeeping Changes in the New Media Age: The Internet, Values and
Practices of Journalism. Journalism Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 486–505
Ismail, A., Torosyan, G., & Tully, M. (2019). Social media, legacy media and gatekeeping: the
protest paradigm in news of Ferguson and Charlottesville. The Communication Review, 22(3), 169-195.
Lewin K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics. Human Relations, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 5–40.
Pałka-Suchojad, K. (2021). Who Keeps the Gate? Digital Gatekeeping in New Media. Zeszyty
Prasoznawcze, 2021(Numer 2 (246), 91-99.
Wallace, J. (2018). Modelling contemporary gatekeeping: The rise of individuals, algorithms and
platforms in digital news dissemination. Digital Journalism, 6(3), 274-293.
Welbers K. (2018). Social Media Gatekeeping: An Analysis of the Gatekeeping Influence of
Newspapers’ Public Facebook Pages. New media & Society, vol. 20, no. 12, p. 4728–4747.
Welbers, K., & Opgenhaffen, M. (2018). Social media gatekeeping: An analysis of the
gatekeeping influence of newspapers’ public Facebook pages. New Media & Society, 20(12), 4728-4747.
Yang, T., & Peng, Y. (2020). The importance of trending topics in the gatekeeping of social
media news engagement: A natural experiment on Weibo. Communication Research, 0093650220933729.
0
232