Even the News Needs to Convince the Bouncer

The media concept of gatekeeping is one that we are all familiar with, but are hardly even
conscious of the fact that it shapes our entire perception of media. Think of gatekeeping as the
bouncer at a nightclub or bar- they are the ones that determine who makes the cut, who looks
good enough, who wants or should be seen by the rest of the public in order to be talked about the next day. Gatekeeping is, in itself, a metaphor. According to McQuail, it is “the process by which selections are made in the media work, especially decisions regarding whether or not to allow a particular news report to pass through the ‘gates’ of a news medium into the news channels.” (308). McQuail and a boatload of other media scholars go on to explain that there are several different elements of gatekeeping. It is these elements that decide which stories will be allowed access through the velvet ropes and into the prestigious world of public recognition. I don’t use this bouncer- nightlife metaphor to be extra clever- I use it because a section in the chapter caught my eye and raised a red flag. McQuail spent so much time explaining gatekeeping and listing the primary news values in western media that were legitimate reasons as to why and when we end up hearing certain stories and certain information. For example, the book neatly lists in Box 12.1 the following, “large scale of events, closeness to home, clarity of meaning, short time scale, relevance, consonance, personification, negativity, significance, drama and action.” (310). All these elements seem like appropriate ones in order to make the cut. However, the section I was referring to that seems to make everything McQuail said a wash was on page 312. He notes that “The more prominent the person involved in any sphere, the more attention and privilege access as a source can be expected. News is often reports of what prominent people say about events rather than reports of the events themselves.” Wow. To me, that just makes me even more suspicious and skeptical of what I’m reading on a regular basis. But it makes sense if you look into it even just a little bit. This is what made me think of the bouncer-nightclub idea. We read so much about celebrities, socialites, and athletes (and usually not for their athletic skills) that it trumps the real news that’s out there. It’s not even that we’re reading about them, but also the trivial nonsense about them that sums up McQuail’s entire statement. The political and economic news takes a back seat to the public because the media sources believe that the consumer wants fluff news because it is more glamorous, exciting, simple and quick.
In Rogers and Dearing’s article “Agenda-Setting Research: Where has it Been, Where is it Going?,” they echo McQuail’s statement, saying that: “the media issue agenda as a result of the influence that powerful groups, notably organized business, exerted as a subtle form of social control.” (79). I would place a pretty high wager that these days, more people could tell you about the current status of Britney Spear’s mental health, or how the pregnant stars of Hollywood are doing rather than the issues still raging in Iraq or, probably more connected with this idea, what’s even happening in our local and state governments and economy- the issues that truly affect us. I found an article written by Bill Conroy for the Narco News Bulletin in 2004 that found him comparing the idea of gatekeeping to Stalin. More intense than my bouncer idea, yes, but it gets the point across with even more power. Conroy states, “...Journalism as an institution is Stalin. Everyone who obeys Stalin gets to stay in, gets to work there, gets to make all their money and write all their garbage and use monosyllabic tongue and keep everything in the normal, in the status quo, so nothing gets ruffled, so Stalin can keep the government going. All the people who want to go against the grain and push at their words to make a point, or to get some feeling into their writing, are all ostracized or purged, just like Stalin would do."
So to help you understand gatekeeping, you’ve now got Stalin in a nightclub. A little misleading right? That's essentially what gatekeeping can do to the public- mislead them. The point we’re trying to get across here is that the news and reporting it has become entirely subjective and not objective. You can read the whole article at http://www.narconews.com/Issue33/article1001.html
The first part is about the author and the last is a plug for his workshop- just another example of gatekeeping actually.
But the question that I wanted to ask was basically what do you guys think about all this gatekeeping and agenda setting in the media? I know we as a group tend to look at information in the media more critically anyway because we’ve studied it for a while now, but do you think the average person on the street is being mislead with what the news is allowing us, or not allowing us to read, hear or see? How do you feel about the idea that a very small group of powerful people are controlling a mass, multi-media institution that delivers the news to the public? Do you agree or disagree with the idea we either are or are not receiving the right amount of information, about the right issues? Do you think the public in general will be able to critically analyze the media, question it or break away from the more entertainment style media? Do you think there are any ways to ever move away from this idea of gatekeeping?

See you at the clubs and bars.
Kate