Where Old (Gatekeepers) Meets New (Media)
- 28 February 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Journalism Practice
- Vol. 7 (6), 755-771
- https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.774117
Abstract
An examination of reader comments published in newspapers shows how journalists shape online content for print. A content analysis of printed comments and interviews with journalists who choose them reveal how gatekeeping constructs a hybrid site of participatory journalism that is similar to but distinct from letters to the editor. Unlike letters, anonymity was the norm. Smaller newspapers predictably printed a larger percentage of comments. But publications of all sizes edited comments, sometimes heavily, before printing them. In selecting comments for newspapers, journalists juggle the immediacy and informality of online conversation with such print standards as context, civility, and readability.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- User CommentsPublished by Wiley ,2011
- Audience views on user-generated content: exploring the value of news from the bottom upNorthern Lights: Film & Media Studies Yearbook, 2010
- USER-GENERATED CONTENT AND GATEKEEPING AT THE BBC HUBJournalism Studies, 2010
- Promises unfulfilled? ‘Journalism 2.0’, user participation and editorial policy on newspaper websitesMedia, Culture & Society, 2010
- Were Newspapers More Interested in Pro-Obama Letters to the Editor in 2008? Evidence From a Field ExperimentAmerican Politics Research, 2010
- PARTICIPATORY JOURNALISM PRACTICES IN THE MEDIA AND BEYONDJournalism Practice, 2008
- Air Mail: NPR Sees "Community" in Letters From ListenersJournal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2007
- Letters to the Editor: A Feedback Opportunity Turned into a Marketing ToolEuropean Journal of Communication, 2005
- An Ethical "Blind Spot": Problems of Anonymous Letters to the EditorJournal of Mass Media Ethics, 2005
- A “Legitimate Beef” or “Raw Meat”?Civility, Multiculturalism, and Letters to the EditorThe Communication Review, 2004