Sure, there are idiosyncratic differences across various types of outlets which may require medium-specific rules, but the basic point is in those two sentences. It's ridiculous that some people desire that a medium which requires no money in which to participate - for which there are no real gatekeepers - be effectively more regulated than radio/tv/print/etc. [bold mine]Aha. Whether he knew it or not (he probably did) he just named one of the principle mid-century communications theories - gatekeeping - which was actually adapted from a marketing survey. Essentially, gatekeeping tries to look at all the checkpoints a particular datum must go through before it makes it to the audience. So, for any particular news story, it starts with the reporter's microphone/notepad, their brain, their written copy, their editor, etc etc.
Now, as for the substance of Atrios' comment, the answer is quite simple - the government loves and always has loved systems with gatekeepers, the more the better. So the idea of a system where any person can come out of nowhere and become a respected pundit (even a non-practicing economist, Atrios) must scare the ever loving crap out of regulators. Hell, most US democracts probably fear "blogs" as a concept more than they fear Fox News. It's ridiculous, because the power of blogs is almost nothing, but the blogs had a few well-publicized hits last summer in the US election and that must have a few congressmen worried. So, the only solution is obviously to make blogs as difficult to use as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment