Gatekeeping Rules

Ezra Klein sees a "theory of gatekeeping embedded" in my argument against gatekeeping. The principle Klein says I'm advocating:

If fringe individuals and outlets, or opportunistic demagogues and showmen, can whip people up about something, then the media gatekeepers must agree to treat that as a story and dig deep and fast no matter how absurd the story is, and no matter whether giving the story coverage will make the audience think there are real doubts about something that isn’t actually in doubt. I guess there’s an argument for that approach. But let’s call it what it is: a rule for deciding what to cover, not a way to avoid having to make decisions about what to cover.

The trouble is, in the age of Google and the blogosphere, the gatekeepers are building a chain-link fence under water. It may matter less and less what they say or do. And so this debate can get rather abstract pretty quickly, and requires the MSM to constantly interact with what is beyond it.

My view is that the press should investigate stories that in its own judgment require nailing down. If someone claims that the president is from another planet – and I haven't read WND lately so I'm not sure if this is a live question on the right – of course you do not expend resources.

In many cases, like birth certificates, there is no way to do this without the subject's consent. But the press can, at least, ask, and not be embarrassed to do so. This has to be done on a case-by-case basis. And, even given limited resources, the emphasis should be on not dismissing stories just because they are odd or unlikely or embarrassing. There's nowt so queer as folk. You think it was easy to believe Watergate before it was proven? Or the DNA on Lewinsky's dress?

And I'm not sure I like the term "fringe individuals" as if that's a bad thing. Fringe individuals can be onto something. What I worry about is press interests weighing against investigation of some stories because of a concern about reputation or political blowback. So I think the MSM missed the John Edwards story and the Iraq WMD story in ways that do not make them look good. When journalists move in a pack not to inveistgate something – when they discuss on a private list-serv what the political repercussions are of a story before looking into it – I worry. Justin Elliott, by the way, is on the same page as Ezra.