A concept that's mentioned in both chapters 1 and 2 of our textbook is "gatekeeping." Who (or what) are gatekeepers? How do the media serve as gatekeepers? How do they set the agenda for society? (Or do they?) Cite page numbers.
And if you're looking it up on the web, cite the websites you get the information from.
Then post your answers to the questions below. (Don't be afraid to write well, to say something fresh and interesting. Everybody likes pizza, and the next best thing to pizza in class is reading about it in class.) To do this, you'll have to read some of the stuff I've posted on the Scooter Libby trial.
1. How did the major national media (New York Times, Washington Post, the TV networks, etc.) function as gatekeepers in reporting about the buildup to the Iraq war, Joe Wilson's role in it and his opinion about President Bush's use of intelligence?
2. How did the White House control public access to information during the buildup to the Iraq war? Did they succeed in setting the agenda? Were they functioning as gatekeepers as well? When Joe Wilson wrote his article for The New York Times, what did that do to them as gatekeepers?
3. When a government official "leaks" information to the media (i.e. gives it to them anonymously), how does that fit into the gatekeeping function? For the government? For the media? Who wins? Who loses? Or does everybody win?
A weblog for Pete Ellertsen's mass communications students at Benedictine University Springfield.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(136)
-
▼
January
(17)
- COM 209: How do news values make news news(worthy)?
- COMM 317: Read it and weep!
- COM 209, 150: Blogging Iraq to Alaska
- COMM 317: Stories on AOE v. Arizona
- Gatekeeping theory link
- COM 150 -- in-class Monday
- White House 'spin' testimony -- COM 150, 209, 317
- COM 150 -- today's in-class journal
- How would you explain Libby to a kid?
- Libby trial / COM 317, 209, 150 assignment
- COMM317 -- Zenger case
- COM317: Blackie the Talking Cat
- This just in -- blogs and AP style
- COM150: Blog about blogs
- COM209 -- taking notes
- Chief Illiniwek
- COM 209 -- keys to the kingdom (link)
-
▼
January
(17)
About Me
- Pete
- Springfield (Ill.), United States
- I'm a retired English, journalism and cultural studies teacher at Springfield College in Illinois (acquired by Benedictine University and subsequently closed). I coordinate jam sessions for the "Clayville Pioneer Academy of Music" at Clayville Historic Site and the Prairieland Strings dulcimer club, and I sing in the choir and the contemporary praise team at Peace Lutheran Church in Springfield. On Hogfiddle I post links and video clips for our sessions and workshops on the mountain dulcimer (a.k.a. "hog fiddle"), as well as research notes on folklore and cultural studies, hymnody and traditional Anglo-Celtic and Scandinavian music. I also posted assignments and readings in my interdisciplinary humanities classes. The Mackerel Wrapper (now on hiatus), carried assignments and readings for my mass comm. students. I started teaching b/log when I chaired SCI-Benedictine's assessment committee, and reopened it as the privatization of public schools grew increasingly troubling and closer to home.
14 comments:
They functioned as gatekeepers in reporting about the buildup to the Iraq war in the sense that they hid what didn't suit them and helped the president in his war. Joe Wilson said that Bush: was "exaggerating the Iraqi threat" Wilson told Bush the information he got and Bush overeacted is the conclusion I came to after reading it.
The White House controlled public acces to information during the build up to the Iraq war but only giving out very little information that would make the American people be on his side. Yes they set the agenda and were the gatekeepers. When he wrote his article it took alot of their power away as gatekeepers.
When a govt. official leaks information to the media it can hurt the gatekeepers because that information was supposed to be hidden or kept secret. I believe it is circumstancial if it hurts or helps everyone in the sense that, if its information that will just make us worry and be scared but we can't do anything about it, then it's bad. If its information that tells us the real story and information we didn't have on a topic that we can do soemthing about then it's beneficial.
Information off of:
1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson
2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper
1. Gatekeepers decide what the audience should recieve. The national media functioned as gatekeepers in reporting about the Irag war and bush's use of itellegence by recongnizing their own power and were aware that they could shape the public's opinion and popular tastes.
2.THey controled public access by withholding the information about the war and only releasing what they felt was neccessary information about the war to the mass media. They succeded in setting the agenda. The white house was functioning as gatekeepers. When JOe wrote his article it made the gatekeepers look bad and put them in a frenzy.
3.The government still controls what is leaked and what the media can know about the situation. The media still has to follow government regulations or there are serious punishments unless given permission from the government. Everybody wins in the long run the media get there stories but the governemtn wins too because they control what the media puts out.
1. The national media are gatekeepers in reporting about the buildup to the Iraq war because they conttol everything that is being sent out on the news. They get the last say on what goes in the paper or what goes on the tv.
2. The White House controlled the public access to information during the buildup to the Iraq war very well. Yes they were acting as gatekeepers because they had total control on what they gave to the press.
3. When information is "leaked" it opens up the gate to a little bit more information and more things to expand on and right about. It takes away some of the power of the government on controlling the news they give to the press. The government loses a little and the public whens a little because the public is now a little bit more informed on what is actually happening in the war in Iraq.
1. They all act as gatekeepers to the buildup of the Iraq War because they are all well respected magazines with respected publishers. Therefore their opinions are always very highly respected.
2. The White House controlled by public access to info. about the Iraqi War by trying to avert our attention elsewhere in the country. They acted as gatekeepers because they control what and when they give information to the press.
3. It fits into the gatekeeping funcion because what is "leaked out" by the government are only things they want us to know about. The power that the government has with this is unbelieveably huge. The medias sales could definitely be affected by it. The government definitly wins and the people in the media lose by not knowing everything that is going on that they do not know about.
The New York Times function as gatekeepers because they are able to give you information whenever they are ready to. They also decide what to information to let go and at what time. Joe Wilson states that President Bush info was not true in during one of his speeches.
1. They functioned as gatekeepers because they were the ones deciding what information and how much of it was going to be available to the public. Wilson is a gatekeepers because he, also, let information out and passed on leaked information to the public. He was once working for Bush, but at some point changed and now has a poor view of Bush.
2. They had the only info. about Iraq and withheld it from the public, thereby functioning as the initial gatekeepers of the known information of the Iraqi war. They succeeded, in the beginning, but as time passed info. leaked out. When Wilson leaked the information he possessed he then took the "gatekeeping" position right out from underneath of the White House.
3. When information is leaked, it starts exposing information that otherwise would have been kept confidential. This act often holds a shift in power as far as who is or is not "gatekeeping". For the government, often time, they are screwed when leaks occur because it is them, usually, that is trying to withhold info. from the public arena. The media now becomes a vent for this withheld information and the government looses its' position as a gatekeeper. The government, in this case, loses... because they look super stupid. Everyone else, for the most part wins. The leak gets to tell his or her secret, the public gets to know sort-of what's going on, and the media makes hella cash!! :)
If Iraq is getting better, why do we keep hearing nothing but bad news? The problem is the gatekeeper effect: the gatekeeper controls what information is allowed through and what information is kept away from the eyes and ears of the American people. An honest gatekeeper allows information through based upon its reliability; but a partisan gatekeeper never thinks any news is "reliable" if it contradicts what we call The Story -- the predetermined story-line that animates nearly all newspaper and broadcast coverage.
The Story provides the framework, and every piece of information is evaluated by how well it fits into The Story. Every fact is compared to this framework; if it fits -- dead American soldiers, dead Iraqi civilians -- the gatekeeper allows it through. But if it doesn't fit -- peaceful provinces being turned over to the Iraqis, terrorists being captured or killed -- the gatekeeper knows that it must be unreliable... so he spikes it. And the worst part is, he believes he is actually doing his proper job as a journalist.
1. The major nation media functions as gatekeepers by that they have control over, they guard, and monitor what goes on the air.
2. Basically how the White House controlled the public access to information during the buildup to the Iraq war was that they put us citzens in a position to where we only need to hear the good side of the war and not the bad side. They do this to make sure that we are on the american side and prevents us from having any attitude for what we think about the war. Yes they were functioning as gatekeepers. When Joe Wilson wrote the article, it took most of their power away as gatekeepers.
3. There really isnt any gatekeeping involved other than the fact that its up to the media to choose if they want to put it on the air. The media wins and so does the public because they get more information on what is going on. and nobody really loses
They ended up acting like gatekeepers because they told us only their side of the story instead of the full picture.
They told the media only what they wanted us to know. They tried to succeed to set the agenda and be the gatekeepers, but after this article was written, they lost control of the media.
The federal government failed in trying to be the gatekeepers. After they were ratted out, they lost trust from the people living under their power so everyone loses.
1. Gatekeeping allows for the control of the amount of information given on a story. Gatekeepers can "squelch new ideas and suppress news of events that others may find interesting" (pg. 49). Joe Wilson gave the media some powerful information to run with when he released his opinions (wikipedia.org). The major news corporations left some of the facts out and gave the public only minimum information at the start of the Iraq war. Each made it seem like the reasons for the war were of monumental proportions and completely justified.
2. The White House only released minimum information on the Iraq war. It had very tight control and tried to function as a gatekeeper. It didn't work so well. Insiders began to leak information, and the media ran with it. When Joe Wilson wrote his article, it got media attention, and the public was very interested in it. The insider information has slowly leaked into the hands of the public over the course of the Iraq war, and Wilson helped it along.
3. When a government official leaks information, he or she is allowing the public to know certain information. That information may or may not be the whole story. The government itself attempts to keep tight control over the information that the media receives. The media in turn decide how exactly to use the information given to them and how much of the information to allow the public to know. No one really wins in these situations. Some of the information may not be made public by the government or the media. The media is always trying to get more information, the government is always trying to hide information, and the public never gets the whole story.
Gatekeepers decide what we hear through the media. When others come along and report what has been undiscussed, or tell issues that have not been told it loses the gatekeepers power. Except I feel that the gatekeepers try to mold what we know and believe.
The White House tries to control what we citizens know about really goes on in Iraq for a reason. I think they feel it is a way to protect us from the pain, of what our family and friends that are there fighting for our country are really going through. Also so we do not undermind the descions of our government, even though Bush messed up.
When other reporters tell the people information that the gatekeepers do not let out, I believe it is a good thing. As long as all the additional information is true. We have a right to know, what is really going on. The govenrment just wants to protect their reputatation, and make it look like all descions made by the government, are really our the best descions for our country.
The media were considered "gatekeepers" for the fact that they would block out the negative information and portray the President as being very involved in a good way for the American people. He is shown in a good light because he seems to be "fighting to save our country" instead of having hideen agendas toward starting a war. Joe Wilson was hired to do the exact job that he did, but his reports weren't what George Bush wanted to hear or send on to the people of America.
The White House tried to keep hidden agendas out of the discussion of the war. They wanted the people to believe that Bush knew information that could harm the american people if not acted upon. It succeeded at the start, but now it is beginning to backfire. Bush's weaknesses have been exposed to the point where he has one of the lowest presidential satisfaction rates ever. People who worked for him have come out and exposed his problems and reasons for his actions.
Leaking information anonymously is a prolem because it can hurt someone's reputation without having anyone take the heat for making the accusation. Just because they are a "government official" instantly makes people seem them as guilty without any sort of proof. It hurts the people who feel the slander, but does do anything to the people who could just be speaking off of heresy and suspicion
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
the White House controls the information that is received by the media to a certain extent. there are still ways to get that information from people who give it away. When Joe Wilson wrote his article it shut them down as gatekeepers, he basically said that he couldn't find any thing to prove there were any nuclear bombs being built.
When gov. offical leak information it defeats the purpose of the gatekeeping function. It takes control from the media. I don't think anyone wins in these situation.
When Wilson came up empty handed the White house sent someone else to try to find something. This was testing his credibility. They were acting as gatekeepers because they chose not to publish his findings.
The White House was acting as gatekeepers to keep everything from getting out. It made them look bad as gatekeepers.
When someone leaks out information it make them look bad when it finally comes out that there are people who are concealing information and not letting the public know.
Post a Comment