early version of this paper was presented at the Media in Transition
Conference at MIT on October 8, 1999. This revised version was
completed in 2001.]
decisions as to what newspaper stories should be published,
and therefore reach the public, and, of those stories, which
should receive prominent display have often been described
as elements of the editorial "gatekeeping" process.
This term figuratively refers to the editor(s)' content selection
process, opening and closing the news gates that determine
the flow of information to the audience.
concept of gatekeeping dates back to Kurt Lewin's 1947 ideas
on social influence. He asserted that creating widespread
social change could be achieved by focusing on people in key
positions of influence who functioned as "gatekeepers"
of the flow of ideas.
Lazarsfeld had earlier noted the intervening factor of interpersonal
interaction in the development of public opinion in his "The
People's Choice" study of the 1940 election. Lazarsfeld
et. al. reported that "molecular leaders" held influence
among their acquaintances "even though they were not
necessarily prominent within the overall community."
Charles Berger and Steven Chaffee note that Katz and Lazarsfeld's
seminal work, Personal Influence (1955), crystallized
the social-mediation effects framework in their "description
of the movement of information and influence from media to
recipient as a 'two-step flow' mediated by group networks
and opinion leaders."
before societal group opinion leaders exert influence on general
public perception, they, themselves, may be limited by the
topics that are put before them, an agenda of issues that
is controlled to a degree by the media. Sociologists and media
scholars trace the concept of "agenda setting" to
Bernard Cohen's comments on the role of the media: "The
media may not be successful much of the time in telling people
what to think, but they are 'stunningly successful in telling
people what to think about.'" Studies of the 1960s
and 1970s tested the hypothesis that topics the press emphasized
would become those that the public found most important, beginning
with McCombs and Shaw's study on the 1968 presidential election.
Roberts and Bantimourodis considered the evolution of agenda
setting and gatekeeping concepts as they researched the flow
of news in the international setting. They also explored the
phenomenon of intermedia agenda setting, in which they suggested
some news media, including wire services and global broadcasters
(such as CNN and BBC's World Service Television), establish
the diet of news and issues that other media will disseminate.
Of course, this news food chain is partly determined by budgets
and the necessity for smaller news outlets to purchase and/or
rely on news services and syndicates for international coverage.
suggests that gatekeeping was a role not just attributed to
the media by analytical, academic observers, but one that
members of the press had assumed as an obligatory mantle:
"For years the mainstream media considered themselves
the gatekeepers, the wise ones with the good sense to decide
what the public needed to know and what it would be better
off without." She also argues that the press corps, pre-Wilbur
Mills and the Tidal Basin bombshell, had behaved in a paternalistic
fashion, deciding what to print and what to withhold and sometimes
ignoring politicians' private and sexual peccadilloes.
scholars have examined not only the gatekeeping phenomenon
and its effects but also the process through which it occurs.
Clayman and Reisner conducted a study of the gatekeeping function
evident in contemporary editorial conferences, focusing on
the social process in addition to internal news value criteria
used by decision makers. The authors explained that in the
group editorial meeting two main factors influenced what the
leading editor (often the managing editor or front page editor)
would select for publication. The two factors were the story
presentation process by each editor, including strong and
favorable evaluations of newsworthiness, and the sequence
of stories within that presentation. They observed that these
influences were factors in article placement and prominence
(such as on the front page, above or below the fold, and as
the "lead" story). Clayman and Reisner asserted,
"Gatekeeping itself is fundamentally a social and collaborative
process." They suggested that researchers analyzing these
crucial news content decisions review not only what an editor
might internally deem newsworthy but also how the social and
public process of the editorial conference functions.
Changing Nature of Gatekeeping in the New Media
many have accepted the gatekeeping metaphor as an accurate
representation of this decision-making process, journalists,
among others, have noted the gradual changes in their role
created by the explosion of audience-seeking news sites. Newsweek
columnist Jonathan Alter recently lamented the slow fading
of the authoritative gatekeepers' voices that used to rise
above the din: "But for most of this century there was
a greater order to the babble than exists today. Journalists
and those who influenced them served as gatekeepers, deciding
what the people could know."
reflected on a "new news" that "now comes from
a thousand mouths." And, he warned, "If everything's
for entertainment, everything shrinks in significance, and
we risk losing ourselves in the new American wilderness of
is probably correct that media divergence and popular access
have created a "wilderness of noise," an exponentially
expanding marketplace of news and opinion, albeit sometimes
hard to distinguish from each other. Yet, many of the daily
newspaper Web sites that have burgeoned over the last half
decade have emerged from within a traditional daily newsroom
structure, still carrying its trappings of reportorial style
and editorial gatekeeping. As with any new medium, or, in
this case, hybrid medium, there are differences. This upstart
cyber offspring is more sociable, that is, more interactive,
than its paper counterpart; it is more attractive than its
graying parents; and it is more independent, often cut loose
from ritualistic, formal meetings about its content and display.
As a child of the late twentieth century, the newspaper Web
site is electronically sophisticated and keenly aware of its
earning potential, tracking daily who reads it, what they
read, and how often they read or click through.
the News Decision Making Process
to investigate how newspaper Web sites make content decisions,
I have examined a range of daily newspaper content and display
decisions through selective content analysis and probed the
article linking and placement process through an informal
survey of online editors. When discussing this developing
hypernews format, we can overlay the terminology of print-side
news production on the gatekeeping process as it plays out
in the electronic sphere. Visually, of course, paper pages
become computer screens; "above the fold" transfers
to pixel and screen size. Yet, electronic newspaper pages
retain some print medium features. On those screens, one can
still see a combination of type, photographs, and graphics.
Stories are still stories, and writers are still writers.
difference in online vernacular is that Web page viewers more
often are referred to as the "audience" than the
"readers." Reading or showing interest in an article
is defined as clicking on the story link or a "hit."
Thus, a successful article may have a thousand or more hits
in a day (for a medium-sized daily newspaper). Circulation
has been transformed to the number of page views or page impressions,
that is, how often any reader opens the Web page. Editors
and advertisers both seek golden "click through"
rates, or the number of times a reader actually double-clicks
to see more of an article or advertisement. Most advertising
rates on the Web continue to be measured in CPM (cost per
thousand) units, but with the thousand representing numbers
of people opening to the Web page not putting their quarters
into a news box.
lies one of the strategic differences between print and electronic
media in acquiring demographic and circulation data. The quarter-dropper
is nameless, faceless, and enigmatic in her or his reading
habits. However, the clicker, although not known by name (in
most cases), can be tracked more closely. Most Web page nerve
centers are able not only to count each page viewer but also
to record at what points the reader/viewer enters and exits
the Web site - at what link. So, if Reader A opens the main
Web page, links to an article on a stranded pet lizard and
exits without further perusal of the nation's political and
economic news, the top sports scores, or what's happening
in county government, the wizards behind the magic monitor
are alerted. Maybe the prominently displayed county government
story looked too dull. Perhaps the tax cut was an old issue.
Or, could it be that Reader A really only cares about reptiles
in distress? The individual case may not jump out at the bean
counters, but the aggregate data pile up, designating "what's
hot" and "what's not," by article, section,
and time of day, for editors to contemplate.
media always have run surveys and reader polls to ascertain
what readers read, what they enjoy, and what will draw them
to peer closely through those gated news box windows. (The
old joke is that hardworking young reporters are often horrified
to learn their readers are most faithful to the obituaries
and the comics.) With the electronic delivery of news, however,
the decision-making powers that be have greater and more specific
information about what finds favor with their audience. And,
as they begin to sift through reams of statistical printouts,
what impact does this knowledge have on content selection
the content selection process, I began with traditional newsroom
criteria for selecting top stories of the day: a significant
national issue; a significant international issue; breaking
news; an article of local interest or about a community issue;
reader interest (a story that draws a reader in and that the
reader will likely read); a strong article package (including
good photos, graphs, or illustrations). Of those criteria,
local news and breaking news inevitably rise to the top.
politics is local, then surely all coverage of politics, and
other issues close to the heart, is local, too. Newspaper
Web sites have been touted for their ability to bring local
news to the reader electronically, at all times of day, not
just in the driveway at dawn.
Lasica remarked, "The irony is, as online papers acquire
a global reach, they need to become even more local."
Local stories and local angles on national stories are surfacing
as popular on newspaper Web sites and, in the traditional
gatekeeping sense, important for community education and awareness.
news, naturally, is the area in which online news sites have
the greatest one-upmanship over their in-print rivals and,
perhaps, their long-time broadcasting adversaries, as well.
Felicity Barringer, in an article in the New York Times,
quotes Rich Jaroslavsky, managing editor of The Wall Street
Journal Interactive Edition, praising the renewed competitiveness
that online news sites offer: "The Web allows newspapers
to do both - to be competitive on a time basis with television,
and to provide perspective as well." Barringer also offers
the example of Web site staff members at the Chicago Tribune
who believe "what they can do best is cover breaking
Chicago news because that is where their resources are concentrated."
of Online Newspaper Staff
news" and "local news or community issue" were
ranked as the most important factors in a pilot survey of
Knight Ridder, Inc., newspaper Web staff that I conducted
in September 1999. The Knight Ridder constellation (then comprised
of 28 newspaper Web sites) provided an intriguing cross-section
of electronic journalism, including a few large dailies (Detroit,
Philadelphia, Miami) and many medium-sized dailies from a
range of locations across the country. The survey, with a
36 percent response rate, was directed to the online editor
or other staff member most responsible for making article
content selection and display decisions.
ranked the traditional content selection criteria (discussed
earlier) in terms of most important factor (1) to least important
factor (6) when "selecting stories given major play (receive
most prominent placement) in the online edition." Fifty
percent of respondents ranked "breaking news" as
the most important factor; 40 percent listed "local interest
or community issue" as the most important factor. Ten
percent ranked "reader interest" as the most important
factor. In open-ended comments, one respondent noted that
the emphasis of the Web site was almost entirely local. Another
simply asserted, "Breaking news is king!"
section provided a breakdown of reader interest factors. Respondents
were asked to rank the most important to least important factors
based on four categories of reader interest: "Readers
will be curious about the subject of the article; readers
will be educated by the article; readers will be entertained
by the article; readers will likely respond to the article"
(via letters to the editor, online forum, or online poll).
will be curious" received the most frequent first-place
ranking at 44.4 percent. "Readers will likely respond"
received first-place ranking from 33.3 percent of respondents.
The other two choices, "readers will be educated"
and "readers will be entertained," received 11.1
percent each as first-choice selections. One respondent remarked
that newspapers needed to be more responsive to their readers'
preferences: "I think the paper chooses what readers
should want, instead of what they've shown they want. We can't
ignore what readers are actually reading, if we are going
to survive as print newspapers. Frequently an inside Metro
story goes on my home page to high readership." This
comment well represents the changing gatekeeping process due
to the audience data now available. This editor had statistical
support for the "success" of a local (Metro) story
that drew in the Web audience. Similar follow-through data
of a story's success is not available for the print edition;
one could only speculate that print readership in this case
was lower because of the story's inside placement.
also asked about the number of staff involved in deciding
which stories would receive major play in the online edition.
The range of responses was one to three people with one editor
noting that one individual made the decisions but that this
was a different individual every day; in total, seven people
made decisions during each week. Another respondent noted
that only the new media editor made decisions because of Newspaper
Guild contract requirements.
comments about the process came from an open-ended question
on how decision-making for the online edition differed from
that of the print edition. One online staffer described a
"streamlined decision process." Remarkably, at some
newspaper Web sites, although a codified system of editorial
conferences exists for deciding the primary content of the
print edition, the Web edition decisions may be left to a
few or, in some cases the one Web editor on duty. One survey
respondent wrote, "Well, there's only two of us as opposed
to 200 of them [print staff members]. A lot simpler!"
Content Analysis of Daily Newspaper Web Sites
online editors have a fairly good sense of what copy attracts
their readers with a natural leaning of the medium toward
local interest and breaking news. How, then, does this detailed
knowledge of what the audience wants affect the traditional
gatekeeping role of giving readers what they should have -
an unpleasant dose, at times, of all the news that editors
judge fit to print? To gather data on variable content selection,
media researchers may examine how different newspapers present
the same news day across the country. In fall 1999, I developed
and applied a content analysis rubric for assessing the degree
of local news prominence on newspaper Web sites and the mix
of news versus feature stories that might attract readers.
The analysis covered a range of medium and large-sized, daily
newspaper organizations throughout the United States on two
occasions, one in September and one in October.
this limited study, "local interest or community issue"
was defined as: 1) the who, what, or where of the news being
local; 2) regional news that a local audience would follow
because of proximity (such as N.C. residents in the center
of the state tracking hurricane damage on their coastline);
or 3) a "localized" story providing the local angle
on a regional or national issue. Analysis on one of the selected
news days, October 1, 1999, covered ten daily newspaper Web
sites: Arizona Republic, Baltimore Sun, Chicago
Tribune, Cincinnati Enquirer, The Dallas Morning
News, Detroit Free Press, Philly.com (comprised
of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News),
St. Petersburg Times, San Diego Union-Tribune,
and Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
newspaper Web sites displayed at least four main, on-screen
stories while most contained five and one as many as eight.
For evaluating content selection, the study limited the "top
story" designation to the top four stories in a top-to-bottom
screen scroll. That day's analysis revealed that local news
comprised 75 percent or more of the top four stories in 70
percent of the Web sites. And of that group, two sites used
100 percent local stories. Of the remainder, two of the sites
used 50 percent local news, and one site had no local news
among the top four stories. "No local stories" among
the top four did not mean a complete absence of local coverage
on that site; though, most daily newspaper pages have categorized
menus of headline links. For example, the Baltimore Sun
carried two national and two international stories as its
top four but offered a rail (display of options along one
side of the screen) of other news links, including a list
of Maryland stories. Local coverage clearly dominated the
news day's offerings on October 1, 1999.
of content style offered a wider range of results. For this
analysis, "news stories" were defined as those on
current events or issues and breaking news; "feature
stories" included articles that were not time sensitive,
reviews and entertainment-related pieces, and stories that
provided feature approaches to issues within "sections"
(such as health). The results for October 1 were an even split:
50 percent of the Web sites reviewed placed only "news
stories" in their top four; the other half offered from
25 to 75 percent "feature stories" in the top displayed
content. Half of the sites also offered a headline link list
of breaking news or "top news" articles. Even though
these "top news" stories received only a headline,
instead of the four or five lines of text and accompanying
art that the main stories received, the top news menus typically
appeared in a prominent location on the screen.
1 analysis revealed higher news than feature content. Thus,
the content style examination of the Web pages did not immediately
suggest that editors were selecting a high percentage of "softer"
feature copy to entice their online audiences.
news day reviewed was more difficult to analyze because of
the item content itself and its impact on space use and selection
decisions. September 17, 1999, was a "heavy" news
day with continuing coverage of Hurricane Floyd up and down
the East Coast and a two-day-old church shooting in Fort Worth,
Texas. Though, the sample of newspaper Web sites was selected
that day, in part, to reflect the influence of these news
stories. The papers reviewed were: The Charlotte Observer,
Chicago Tribune, The Dallas Morning News, Detroit
Free Press, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Kansas
City Star, Philly.com, and two more national newspapers,
The New York Times and The Washington Post.
versus non-local content analysis of this somewhat aberrant
news day could easily be skewed because of the dominance of
major regional stories. The Post and the Times
only gave prominent display to three stories, rather than
the common four "top stories" of other sites. The
Star-Telegram and the Morning News, newspapers
in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, dedicated the whole of their
article space to the recent local shooting.
of the four eastern newspaper sites placed Hurricane Floyd
or resultant flooding stories as their lead articles (only
the Times gave it second position). The Fort Worth paper showcased
fourteen links to news stories and news/feature sidebars related
to the shooting; the Dallas paper's sixteen links included
recorded 911 tapes and connections to television video coverage
on the church shooting. Interestingly, both of the Texas newspaper
Web sites observed tapped into the distinctively interactive
qualities of the electronic medium. The Star-Telegram
offered an online forum for comments on the shooting, and
both sites provided a deposit link for users to type in condolences
for church members and victims' families.
these intermittent analyses of Web site content do not offer
statistically significant patterns, they do help focus the
discussion around content selection factors and the changing
nature of editorial gatekeeping as newspaper content moves
from page to screen. During this technological sea change,
journalism has become a much more audience-centered universe
nurturing newspaper Web sites that are innately more interactive
than their print siblings.
on the Gatekeeping Process
newspaper Web site editors not only crunch through much more
data about their audience's reading habits but also hear more
from their public and hear it more often. Many reporters and
news staff are receiving more feedback these days, especially
with the popularity of e-mail and a push to print e-mail addresses
next to writers' bylines.
sites often include immediate-response reader polls and forums
in which users simply click a "yes" or "no"
to the day's question and choose a separate link to view vote
totals. (Although there's no way to enforce one person/ one
ballot, users are restricted from clicking twice in a row.)
In online forums, readers may view a cumulative list of comments
on an issue or story the newspaper Web site has run. Anyone
may select the forum link and scroll through his or her neighbors'
comments. (Some site editors have had to delete offensive
or obscene comments from this open depository.)
providing outlets for response, online editors and staff may
be affected by the feedback they receive and the telling numbers,
or "hit reports," that arrive on their desks. Esther
Dyson, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, likens the online
editor to a "virtual bartender," whose value is
in listening as well as talking. She adds, "The more
successful online services put a high premium on interacting
with readers." The other voices
that online editors may be listening to are wary advertisers
and their own anxious publishers who have been dumping dollars
down a gaping online pit. So far, the cyber venture has not
been profitable. In 1998, Editor & Publisher reported
that newspaper Web sites would likely lose more than $80 million
publishers wait out more significant advertising numbers,
they increase revenue through sales of archived stories, Internet
Service Provider packages, and subscriptions (some sites offer
a modicum of information gratis and charge for a full or premium
subscription). Ian Murdock is director of new media at
the San Antonio Express-News, which requires readers to subscribe
for access to most of its site. Murdock told the American
Journalism Review that he seeks a balance between how much
to offer free and how much to withhold for paying users: "'We
need to have enough value for the subscribers,' says Murdock,
'but enough eyeballs for the advertisers.'"
the advertisers the number of page views they're paying for
and keep the readers clicking through, have editors become
less professional sifters, selecting and honing what copy
to publish, and more shovelers, feeding
the public belly only what it craves? If readers, directly
through feedback or indirectly through their clicking habits,
are dictating what will satisfy them, then who's driving the
proverbial media bus?
within the media circle vary in their interpretations but
identify a recasting of the editor's role. On a more restrained
note, Scott Whiteside, director of strategy and technology/new
media for Cox Enterprises, suggests editors may be "so
accountable to the interactive reader that a degree of editorial
control is ceded to the readers themselves."
Lasica, an editor at the Sacramento Bee, finds the
old model no longer applies: "
that journalists be guardians of what comes into the public
sphere - an antiquated notion in an age of information overload
and reader-directed news." He suggests
changing the metaphor: "Simply put: the gate is gone."
the pundits and back in the 24-hour newsroom, the beleaguered
online editor ponders traditional news value as well as cybermarketing
issues: What do I publish, where do I place it, and, now,
how many page views will it get? As the sender (editor) /
receiver (reader) paradigm evolves into a less passive, more
audience-dictated framework, journalists gradually may be
abandoning their guardian status.
Kurt Lewin, "Frontiers in Group Dynamics," Human
Relations 1 (1947): 145-153, quoted in Steven E. Clayman and
Ann Reisner, "Gatekeeping in Action: Editorial Conferences
and Assessments of Newsworthiness," American Sociological
Review 63, no. 2 (1998): 178-199, (ProQuest -- [cited
4 August 1999]), p. 2 of 21.
Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, "The
People's Choice" (New York: Free Press, 1944), quoted
in Charles R. Berger and Steven H. Chaffee, eds., Handbook
of Communication Science (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage,
Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, "Personal
Influence" (New York: Free Press, 1955), quoted in Charles
R. Berger and Steven H. Chaffee, eds., Handbook of Communication
Science (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1987), 65.
Bernard Cohen, "The Press and Foreign
Policy" (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963),
quoted in Charles R. Berger and Steven H. Chaffee, eds., Handbook
of Communication Science (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage,
Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, "The
Agenda-setting Function of Mass Media," Public Opinion
Quarterly 36 (1972): 176-187, quoted in Charles R. Berger
and Steven H. Chaffee, eds., Handbook of Communication
Science (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1987), 105.
Marilyn S. Roberts and Philemnon Bantimaroudis,
"Gatekeepers in International News," Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics 2, no. 2 (1997):
62-77, (EBSCOhost, MasterFILE Premier database -- [cited 4
August 1999]), accession no. 9705016477, p. 4 of 15.
Alicia C. Shepard, "Gatekeepers Without Gates,"
American Journalism Review 21, no. 2 (1999): 22-30,
(EBSCOhost, MasterFILE Premier database -- [cited 4 August
1999]), accession no. 1715781, p. 3 of 14.
Steven E. Clayman and Ann Reisner, "Gatekeeping in Action:
Editorial Conferences and Assessments of Newsworthiness,"
American Sociological Review 63, no. 2 (1998): 178-199,
(ProQuest -- [cited 4 August 1999]), p. 16 of 21.
Jonathan Alter, "The New Powers That Be," Newsweek
(18 January 1999),
24-25, (NewsBank InfoWeb. -- [cited 4 August 1999]), record
no. 005510DAC753C0B4A97E0, p. 2 of 3.
Ibid., p. 2-3 of 3.
J. D. Lasica, "Net Gain," American
Journalism Review 18, no. 9 (1996): 20-34, (EBSCOhost,
MasterFILE Premier database -- [cited 4 August 1999]), accession
no. 9611170710, p. 24 of 27.
Felicity Barringer, "Narrowing the Electronic
News Gulf: Papers Beefing Up
Reporting on Line as TV Sites Aim for Depth," New
York Times, 7 June 1999, section C, p. 14.
Lasica, p. 14 of 27.
Robert Neuwirth, "Race into Cyberspace
Gushes $80M Red Ink," Editor & Publisher,
19 December 1998, 12-13, (ProQuest -- [cited 4 August 1999]),
p. 1 of 3.
Scott Kirsner, "Profits in Site?"
American Journalism Review 19, no. 10 (1997): 40-44,
(ProQuest -- [cited 4 August 1999]).
Ibid., p. 7 of 10.
Concept of "shovelers" from Lasica.
Scott Whiteside, "Web Redefines Who
an Editor Is," American Editor, no. 777, (July/August
Lasica, p. 13 of 27.
Ibid., p. 14 of 27.
Jonathan. "The New Powers That Be." Newsweek,
18 January 1999, 24-25. NewsBank InfoWeb. -- [cited 4 August
1999], record no.005510DAC753C0B4A97E0.
Felicity. "Narrowing the Electronic News Gulf: Papers
Beefing Up Reporting on Line as TV Sites Aim for Depth."
New York Times, 7 June 1999, sec. C, p. 14.
Charles R., and Steven H. Chaffee, eds. Handbook of Communication
Science. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1987.
Steven. E. and Ann Reisner. "Gatekeeping in Action: Editorial
Conferences and Assessments of Newsworthiness." American
Sociological Review 63, no. 2 (1998): 178-199. ProQuest
-- [cited 4 August 1999].
Bernard. The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1963. Quoted in Charles R. Berger and Steven
H. Chaffee, eds., Handbook of Communication Science
(Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1987), 105.
Elihu and Paul F. Lazarsfeld. Personal Influence. New York:
Free Press, 1955. Quoted in Charles R. Berger and Steven H.
Chaffee, eds., Handbook of Communication Science (Newbury
Park, Calif.: Sage, 1987), 65.
Scott. "Profits in Site?" American Journalism
Review 19, no. 10 (1997): 40-44. ProQuest -- [cited 4
J. D. "Net Gain." American Journalism Review
18, no. 9 (1996): 20-34. EBSCOhost, MasterFILE Premier database
-- [cited 4 August 1999], accession no. 9611170710.
Paul F., Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. The People's
Choice. New York: Free Press, 1944. Quoted in Charles R. Berger
and Steven H. Chaffee, eds., Handbook of Communication
Science (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1987), 67.
Kurt. "Frontiers in Group Dynamics." Human Relations
1 (1947): 145-153. Quoted in Steven. E. Clayman and Ann Reisner,
"Gatekeeping in Action: Editorial Conferences and Assessments
of Newsworthiness," American Sociological Review
63, no. 2 (1998): 178-199. ProQuest -- [cited 4 August 1999].
Maxwell and Donald Shaw. "The Agenda-setting Function
of Mass Media." Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (1972): 176-187.
Discussed in Charles R. Berger and Steven H. Chaffee, eds.,
Handbook of Communication Science (Newbury Park, Calif.:
Robert. "Race into Cyberspace Gushes $80M Red Ink."
Editor & Publisher, 19 December 1998, 12-13. ProQuest
-- [cited 4 August 1999].
Marilyn S., and Philemnon Bantimaroudis. "Gatekeepers
in International News." Harvard International Journal
of Press/Politics 2, no. 2 (1997): 62-77. EBSCOhost, MasterFILE
Premier database -- [cited 4 August 1999], accession no. 9705016477.
Alicia C. "Gatekeepers Without Gates." American
Journalism Review 21, no. 2 (1999): 22-30. EBSCOhost,
MasterFILE Premier database -- [cited 4 August 1999], accession
Scott. (1996,). "Web Redefines Who an Editor Is."
American Editor, no. 777, July/August 1996, 4-5.