Talk:Gatekeeping (communication)/Archive 1

Discussion
The list of people and organizations regarded as "gatekeepers" is arbitrary, unsourced, inherently speculative, and most likely just the opinion of whoever started this article. With an article like this, every leftist in the world will have their name dropped into that list as a potential "gatekeeper". Who is making these allegations? I've added the pov tag. 207.6.31.119 11:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, only a small percentage of U.S. leftists exercise editorial censorship power over the U.S. Establishment Foundation-funded or CPB-funded left alternative media institutions. So the notion that "every leftist in the world will have their name dropped into" a list of gatekeepers is ridiculous.  Only a relatively few prominent U.S. left professional journalists/writers exercise a special editorial gatekeeping influence over foundation-subsidized or CPB-funded media groups like Democracy Now,Pacifica Radio, Political Research Associates/Public Eye, The Nation, The Progressive, FAIR/CounterSpin, etc.--bf [Feb. 17, 2006]


 * The list comes strictly from the websites that are appended to the article as external links. I compiled the list. I used only those individuals and organizations that were most frequently mentioned across the sites -- in other words, I looked for consensus among those who use the term. Note that I also used the word "purported" to qualify the list, to indicate that these individuals and organizations are not being listed as gatekeepers per se, but rather as individuals and organizations that are frequently referred to as gatekeepers. I hope that this satisfies your concerns. -- HK  15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Partially, but due to the fact that the term is used by conspiracy theorists, I still think the list will be trouble in the future...unless it's watched carefully. I'll remove the pov tag for now, though. 207.6.31.119 19:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Establishment-funded editorial gatekeepers who chose to censor anti-war voices during the Korean War were also criticized during the 1952 U.S. presidential campaign by Progressive Party activists who felt they were the victims of an actual Establishment media conspiracy to censor or marginalize their left anti-war dissident voices. On June 14, 1952, for instance, the Progressive Party issued the following press release related to Establisment-funded editorial gatekeeper censorship:


 * "Charging a `conspiracy to deny time' to the Progressive Party, C.B. Baldwin, National Secretary of the party, announced that an official complaint had been filed before the Federal Communications Commission against four major radio-TV networks


 * "Mr. Baldwin also announced that the Progressive Party had demanded prosecution by Attorney General James P. McGranery of the same networks for a `clear case of their violation of the federal election laws,' in contracting for commercial sponsorship for convention and post-convention political campaign coverage.


 * "The charge is made against the American Broadcasting Company which has a contract with Admiral Radio Corporation, the Columbia Broadcasting System, whose coverage will be sponsored by the Westinghouse Company, the Mutual Broadcasting Company and the National Broadcasting Company whose political coverage will be subsidized by the Philco Corporation.


 * "`Consistent requests for time on radio and TV since January have been turned down by the networks,' Mr. Baldwin said, `while the same networks have been lavish in placing many hours of time at the disposal of the two major parties. The Progressive Party has been granted 15 minutes of studio time for its Chicago convention of July 4, 5, and 6, Mr. Baldwin stated, `while up to 96 solid hours of coverage has been granted each of the two major parties, paid for by corporations."


 * Similarly, since 9/11/01, it's been obvious to most U.S. anti-war left activists that the Establishment foundation-funded, CPB-funded or Working Assets Inc.-funded alternative media group gatekeepers have been granting only token access to alternative media editorial pages or radio airwaves for 9/11/01 conspiracy researchers; and have often engaged in Establishment foundation-subsidized conspiracy theorist-baiting of 9/11/01 researchers and left critics of the alternative media gatekeepers' foundation funders. In the 21st-century, conspiracy theorist-baiting has become more common, unfortunately, than redbaiting within U.S. foundation-sponsored left gatekeeper circles.--bf [Feb. 17, 2006]


 * On similarly controversial lists we've added designations for each entry to indicate which apply the label to them. That might be suitable for this list too. -Will Beback 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Is oilempire.us, run by Mark Rabinowitz, considered to be a reliable source? It appears to be a one-man operation with fringe concepts. -Will Beback 21:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * After consulting at the editors at Talk:Hubbert peak theory, I don't think we can call oilempire.us a reliable source. Since we don't know which people are sourced from that website, I'm going to remove the listings. Le'ts rebuild them with indvidually listed sources. -Will Beback 22:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually *do* think we can call oilempire a reliable source on this issue. Regardless of what ideas you have about whether he is fringe or whatever, he has been involved with the issue of gatekeeping for years and is a unique source for primary research on this issue. 198.207.168.65 02:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm saying it is not a reliable source because it is a one-person website holding fringe views. According to reliable sources, we should avoid using such sources. If Rabinowtiz's ideas are well-regarded then we should be able to find them reprinted in more reputable sources. -Will Beback 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure adding the list back in is appropriate even if citations can be provided as to who made the allegations. Are there other lists on WP composed entirely of people alleged to be something?  Alleged Kennedy assassins or co-conspirators, alleged reptilian humanoids, alleged closeted homosexuals?  The only thing comparable that I'm aware of (but there could well be others) is the list of Neocons, which at least contains a number of people who are self-described as such.  Even still that's been up for deletion .  Wouldn't a list of gatekeepers have to have at least one person who admitted to being one, or who was convicted of being one in some way? Schizombie 03:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The list of alleged gatekeepers got added back in without much explanation, and the List of people described as neoconservatives got deleted.Schizombie 16:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the list again. We shouldn't use anything sourced from oilempire. -Will Beback 17:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are creating a Catch-22. This is an article that explains the use of a political term, yet anyone who uses the term is automatically a "conspiracy theorist" and therefore cannot be a source for the article. It looks to me like you are more interested in protecting Chip Berlet from criticism than you are in providing information to Wikipedia readers. --NathanDW 20:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I never made any reference to conspiracy theories. Please re-read what I actually wrote. -Will Beback 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a shortened list, drawn solely from LeftGateKeepers.com. Now, Will, I would appreciate it if you would direct your concern about sourcing to the "criticism" section, which at present is simply the selected opinions of Wikipedia editors. -- HK  23:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. For some reason only a few of the names on the chart were added. I've tried to add the rest. -Will Beback 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going with my original intention, which was to focus on those alleged gatekeepers that are mentioned in all the various accounts. -- HK  01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet's comment
Cberlet, you have added a comment which you represent as the views of "critics." I'm sure that such critics exist, but please identify them with a source citation in the article. -- HK  07:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We now have a rebuttal to Cberlet's comment, which is also not sourced. Sources are needed for the entire "critics" section. Cberlet, if you are simply expressing your own opinion here, you should at least put it on your website so you can quote yourself. -- HK  16:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hasn't the convicted crook and lunatic conspiracy theorist LaRouche had something to say about this?--Cberlet 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Political term, or 9/11 Truth Movement/conspiracy theory term?
I've tried going through the hits on google for "left gatekeeper" (10,000 hits, but mostly mirrors/cut&paste) and "search inside this book" on Amazon (just one hit, citing one of the websites). Everything seems to indicate that gatekeeper is not a political science term, but is limited to the 9/11 Truth Movement and 9/11 conspiracy theories. If it is in broader use, that needs to be detailed in the article, if not, the fact that it is limited to [9/11 Truth Movement]] and 9/11 conspiracy theories should be noted in the lead if not also in the title of the article. Why the accusation of gatekeeper seems to be directed exclusively at the left and not the center or right, I'm not sure. The audience of so-called gatekeepers is quite sympathetic to LIHOP and MIHOP I think. And I still don't think a list of people alleged to be something that is alleged to exist meets WP criteria...? All the criticisms of the (now deleted) list of alleged neocons apply.Schizombie 01:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My impression has been that the treatment of aspects of 9/11 by left media has exposed the gatekeeping, in part because of the strong fear of going against the patriotism at the time, but that the term applies to other related topics in a similar manner: assassinations, vote fraud (early on this was 'conspiracy'), whether the third parties should be allowed to run presidential candidates, whether Bush-era oddities like the Nick Berg video were actually real (he's a human that doesn't pump blood when his head is cut off), etc. But this is only anecdotal.  My point is that I don't think left gatekeeping is limited to 9/11 (and logically would apply to the right as well).  The Democrats, for example, were terrified of being publicly called 'conspriacy theorists' if they simply asked for a paper receipt for the voting machines after HAVA was enacted and they were wiped out in the 2002 elections (the same election where 3 Republicans each got 18181 votes in a single county in Texas - an extremely unique palindrome suggestive of a hackers calling card).  The left media seemed to have the same fears and took a long time to question the voting machines and give a voice to the people putting out the warnings, like Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, who were seen as 'hysterical.'  Etc.


 * Unfortunately I have a job and can't be on here constantly to put together the sources. But my thoughts are that it's not just 9/11, and probably not just the left. Bov 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Democracy Now, and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and several of the other alleged gatekeepers did give fairly regular attention to vote fraud and third party candidates (as did more widely available media like Countdown with Keith Olbermann and the satiric The Daily Show, as I recall), and other things that sound conspiratorial like Bush's back bulge which made the cover of Extra!. Schizombie 00:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote fraud, for example, was treated like a conspiracy theory by venues like Counterpunch, and grouped with the '9/11 conspiracy nuts,' as shown here, and many left publications, like Mother Jones, openly called for third parties not to run candidates. The Progressive and the Nation magazines both supported the pro-war Democratic nominee for President in 2004.  Here's an excerpt summarizing the situation at that time:


 * "Democrats and their leftist lackeys have tried to bully and silence Nader supporters. Nader himself was almost violently attacked when he appeared on the new Democrat-controlled "liberal" radio network Air America. And Democratic-allied leftist magazines such as Mother Jones and The Nation have called on Nader to stay out of the 2004 race, mocking the longtime consumer activist and his followers." 24.4.180.197 01:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

History of term?
The oldest usage on Usenet of "left gatekeepers" I was able to find was February 18, 2003. There's only seventy-nine uses of the term there total, and I'm not sure how many of those are cross-postings. As I noted above, there was only one use of the term in a book - one published in 2005. There's 10,000 hits on google, but I don't know how to determine how many of them are mirrors, or how to find the oldest online usage of the term. Internet Archive dates one site only back to April 13, 2003. It seems to me to be a neologism. Perhaps there are older uses of the term "gatekeepers" in the same sense, but it would be harder to find them since there are so many other uses for the word.

It would not surprise me if criticism of the concept will be hard to find, given that so few people use the term. People who would criticize it may not have heard of it, or may not consider it worthwhile bothering. Schizombie 04:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The concept of a Left Gatekeeper is really a segment of the larger concept of "Media Gatekeeping," (a google of Media Gatekeeper" returns 2,480,000 hits, or 726 in quotes) which is a massive and growing area because of the internet, small press vs corporate press, blogs overtaking mainstream media, etc. So there are a lot of older uses of the word gatekeepers which are the same concept: limiting or filtering what the public gets exposed to.  This is just about the particular variety of gatekeeping that goes on in left media.  There is already criticism of it on this page, so it won't be hard to find.  I expect that area will grow on here shortly. Bov 06:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe the article should be renamed Media gatekeeper or Media gatekeeping (more descriptive than "Gatekeeper (politics)", I think), with Left gatekeepers as a subsection? Schizombie 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I don't know what organizations the right-wing might would see as Right Gatekeeping. Maybe someone would fill it in.  However, the concept of Media Gatekeeping is a large one, so although I think this topic is better placed within that, as a stand-alone article, at this stage, it's probably fine, at least until someone has the time to research Media Gatekeeping, which I don't.Bov 07:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It would seem that, more or less by definition, the Right is less of a threat to the established order, so the Establishment would have less of a need to spend those big bucks in order to co-opt it. -- HK  23:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a concept of "gatekeeping" in media studies, but this page is a collection of allegations sourced to conspiracy theorists and fanatics. A serious page on media gatekeeping would not mention a single source on this page, for fear of being seen as ridiculous.--Cberlet 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's right folks, if you question what the 9/11 Commission told us, you're either a conspiracy theorist or a fanatic. So don't dare question. Or at least, if you have to question, then only ask the right questions. . . Bov 18:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do question what the 9/11 commission said. I think LIHOP and MIHOP are both quite possible.  At the same time I believe it's fair to question the people making the gatekeeper allegations.  They might have proof that certain people or media outlets didn't cover the stories they want them to, they might have proof regarding some of the sources of funding, but that doesn't prove a conspiracy, nor does it make their allegations encyclopedic.  Schizombie 18:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you haven't read much of the gatekeeping articles, I recommend this one, where it is shown how writers like Corn and Albert make certain claims (without evidence) which have the effect of blockading further questioning of the situation -- as long as you can say it was incompetence, or that you just 'know' the answers, no more questions will be asked. I do think this issue is encyclopedic, not one or two person's allegations or a single website, but the trend itself across a number of writers, editors and publications. Bov 22:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy dispute
Cberlet, please specify your objections so that they may be addressed. -- HK  15:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why he hasn't responded, but I did raise several of my own concerns above: that the term does not seem to be one of "political parlance", nor does it seem to be in frequent use by even "leftists and conspiracy theorists", that the people using it don't seem especially notable, and that reproducing their allegations here is of questionable encyclopedic purpose. Frankly, I don't think it would be unfair to AfD the article, but I'm not going to be the one to do it. Schizombie 23:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been out of town doing a seminar, as I noted on my user page. My objections are clearly state above. The cites on this entry are to a handful of conspiracy theorists. The real issue of media gatekeeping discussed by scholars such as Bagdikian is not addressed.--Cberlet 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest, then, that you add material by Bagdikian to balance the article. I note that Bagdikian has a home page on Znet, which is accused of being a gatekeeping organization by others. When you say that the cites on this entry are from "conspiracy theorists," I take that to mean that they are from your critics or opponents. If you can demonstrate that anything here is factually inaccurate, please do so and it will be removed. The POV problems that you claim exist can be resolved by adding rebuttal or balancing information. Please do not add your own opinions to the article unless you can demonstrate that they have been published by a reputable source. I hope that you will attend to these matters promptly, as the dispute tag should not be used frivolously. -- HK  22:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't presume to lecture me or make demands on my time. You have been banned from whole arenas of editing on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 23:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * >>"If you can demonstrate that anything here is factually inaccurate, please do so and it will be removed." I agree with this. Bov 00:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On a serious entry about media gatekeeping, the claims of conspiracy theorists would take up about 5% of the page. The rest of the page would cite to media critics such as Bagdikian, Seldes, Jolly, Solomon, Flanders, etc.. It would mention Edward Filene and the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, and Bernays. This page is almost entirely devoted to fringe crackpot conspiracy theoriest who are pathetic shadows of the real media critics who talk about media gatekeeping. It is like a page on sex that only cites Madonna and Professor Irwin Corry.--Cberlet 00:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, Norman Solomon has also been accused of gatekeeping. However, as I said, you are free to add material which you think will balance the article. Since you are the one who added the dispute tag, it is incumbent upon you to do so. Adding the tag, without being willing to contribute constructively to the article, is frivolous complaining. -- HK  01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The solution here is not "balancing." The solution is to make this article conform to neutral point of view. NPOV does not mean "balance POV with more POV." Also, in re this statement: "If you can demonstrate that anything here is factually inaccurate, please do so and it will be removed," this has things backwards, it is incumbent on the proponents of the information in the article to verify and properly source the information, see WP:Verifiability. The totally disputed tag is appropriate. If it is impossible for this article to conform to NPOV, Verifiability, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it should be Afd'd. - Jersyko &middot;talk 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. If you would be so kind as to review what it says at WP:NPOV, you will find the following:
 * The neutral point of view
 * ''The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.


 * ''As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.


 * Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.


 * This article reports on the use of the term without endorsing the viewpoint of those who use it. I am satisfied that it is well sourced and verifiable, but then I would also welcome additional well-sourced and verifiable material that presents a different POV. Cberlet's comment at the beginning of the "criticism" section is simply his own opinion and lacks a verifiable citation: "Critics of the concept of "left gatekeepers" argue that it is a device used by proponents of conspiracy theories to attack those who decry conspiracism and refuse to publish conspiracy theories in their publications." Had this came from a published source, it would be fine. -- HK  15:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. If 100 people in the United States began a campaign to claim that George Bush is a Lizard Alien, Wikipedia would not need to find a published source to point out that the claim had little support in the general public. The term "Left Gatekeepers" was invented in the past few years by conspiracists who were angry that sensible progressive journalists refused to give them page space and airtime for them to spin their lurid crackpot fantasies. When sensible progressive journalists actually wrote articles and went on the air to criticize the conspiracists, they responded by inventing the term and claiming that we as critics were actually agents of the Bush imperialist global timeless conspiracy of evil. There are a dozen published articles dismissing the crackpot conspiracists, sometimes by name, and explaining why they do not deserve page space and airtime. Just because you can't do an Internet search and find the invented phrase "Left Gatekeepers" on the same page as a criticism of the people cited in this entry as "experts" does not mean the issue has not been addressed in print and on the air. I have been interviewed on radio about this issue. According to [User:Herschelkrustofsky|HK]] if I transcribe one of these interviews and post the text here, that will suffice as a published source, correct?--Cberlet 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is some text to chew on:
 * dismissal of idea of Berlet and others as left "gatekeepers".
 * "But Berlet impudently went and attacked the weaknesses of the Shaw/Griffin school of thought rather than accepting Griffin's insistence on focusing on alleged holes that rendered the establishment's story 'problematic'.  We see several factors here -- an attempt to dictate the terms of the debate to the opposing side, an unbelievably indulgent view of the unspecified flaws of the partisans of his own school of thought, and a healthy dose of gratuitous ad hominem attack on those representing a view critical of his.  Close your eyes and he could be a Repug!"
 * "But aside from receiving money from those who receive money from the ruling class, in what way are these leaders 'part of the system'? How do they 'regulate the movement or act as its gatekeepers?'  It would seem that any exercise of leadership at all, which means making some choices, is acting as a gatekeeper."
 * What about adding this?--Cberlet 15:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * HK - but your argument presumes that the article's description is currently NPOV. I have no informed opinion on this subject in real life, but I am certain that, in the interest of having a neutral encyclopedia, this article doesn't cut it. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 16:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think one of the NPOV violations the article makes is by overstating the popularity and significance of the term, and the popularity and significance of those using it. CB's analogy above is inapt, since while Madonna and Irwin Corey are not the best authorities on sex, they are at least notable in their own right.  Schizombie 18:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. Good point. But if I mentioned two people that no one knows, then the glib line doesn't work. :-)  --Cberlet 21:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * >>"their lurid crackpot fantasies." Do you find yourself wondering why the 9/11 Commission put out a third version of the timeline of events that day?  If so, you had better do us all a favor and check yourself into the loony bin. Bov 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * May I ask, just for the record, why "sensible progressive journalists" would be accepting substantial contributions from the Ford Foundation? -- HK  23:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This article has been sitting here with the dispute tag, and no serious efforts to resolve the dispute. The objections from Cberlet and Jersyko seem to be to the existence of the article itself, in which case the appropriate course of action would be to propose a vote for deletion. If there are specific issues of factual accuracy and NPOV, please enumerate them and propose ways to improve the article. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then I think you ought to drop the tag. -- HK  07:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to be the one to have to do the AfD, but the objections on this page clearly have not been listened to or addressed, so it was necessary. Schizombie 08:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, HK, but given the recent arbitration ruling about you not targeting me for my politics and outside writing, do you really think the following was appropriate? see this note on user page. --Cberlet 14:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC
Hi there, came in through an RFC,

When I read the RFC I thought "wow an article on gatekeepers, thats actually a very well-known term in Political Science". However, this article seems to be about Left Gatekeepers, which is a term I've never heard of, and after reading the article, I still hardly understand what it is. Still, if anything, a move to Left Gatekeepers seems in order.

The about the list. There was a similar discussion on Police state recently, in which a few editors sought to include a list of contemporary police states. My advice there, and now here, is that adding such lists to articles on contentious subjects only invites edit wars and will ruin an otherwise decent article. Add maybe one or two examples (with citations), which are most illustrative for the concept udner discussion, no more. If you really REALLY want to fight an edit war about a list, make a new article called List of Left Gatekeepers and fight it there. That way, at least the content of this article will be safe.

Cheers, The Minist e  r of War  (Peace) 07:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You may be right about a move to Left Gatekeepers. But regarding the list, I participated in the discussion about the list at Police state, and I agreed with you. The difference is that the list there was compiled by Wikipedia editors, a recipe for edit warring, whereas the list here is taken from a published source. -- HK  15:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A problem here I think is whether the published (online) source is any more reliable than original research by a WP editor. leftgatekeeper's Traffic Rank on Alexa Internet for leftgatekeepers.com:  2,656,512.  It also would not seem to satisfy the criteria of Notability (websites). Schizombie 19:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Chin letter
Regarding: http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/ResponseFromOnlineJournalAssociateEditorLarryChinToRivaEnteenReChipBerlet.htm How do we know that it is an open letter? I see no indication of that fact. -Will Beback 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is an open letter, made public by Larry Chin, not Riva Enteen. Try to be more careful


 * It was submitted to Leftgatekeepers.com through their normal process, as described on their home page. The email headers which appear in the article are those of the email form Riva Enteen, to which Chin is making a public response. -- HK  21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no mention of how to post an open letter nor any reference to this being an open letter. Can you quote the text you're referring to here? Thanks, -Will Beback 21:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * From the header (if true) and what appears below it (if true) it appears to be from Enteen to Lane, sent as an open letter from Enteen to a mailing list which she administered. Whether she (if it is true) intended it to be an open letter to a broader audience, or what the mailing list's policies are on forwarding or reproduction, I couldn't say. If Enteen has her own site on which it appears, it would be better to cite to that. Шизомби 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As for Chin's part of it, it's true, that doesn't seem to be sourced, and in the absence of that, speculation on the origin and nature of Chin's letter is just that or Original Research. Шизомби 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See bottom of the home page, left side, "To find out how to submit an article to LeftGatekeepers.com." Chin's letter appears as an article. From that, I infer that it is an "open letter." You may refer to it as an "article" if you prefer. I hope that no one is playing obtuse here. Whether Enteen intended her letter to be made public is irrelevant; Chin's remarks, which are the ones cited in this article, were clearly intended for public consumption.-- HK  23:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The letter starts "Riva:", which indicates it was addressed to one person. It is not clearly intended for original consumption. -Will Beback 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is unusual for an Open letter to be addressed that way, but it is unusual for an open letter not to be identified as such by a note from the author, and the posting note at the bottom of the page only notes when it was posted but not by whom. One should not have to infer that it is an open letter or that Chin submitted it, and I don't believe I'm being obtuse in saying so.  Also, for what it's worth, the letter (nor any mention of Riva Enteen) does not appear to appear on Chin's own website http://www.onlinejournal.com/ from a Google domain-restricted search. Шизомби 00:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What links here and also media conflicts of interest generally
I think I'd originally found this page by a link, since deleted from PSYOP where it had been added in without explanation or being mentioned in the article. It appears on La Papessa where it is asserted that Pasqualina Lehnert is one, and while the description there certainly makes her a censor of some kind, she does not appear to fit the definition of Gatekeeper according to this article - or if so more information would be needed on the major foundations funding her. Links and mentions were also added to other pages without much explanation, seemingly IMO to drum up traffic to some of the sites pushing this theory.

I should add, however, that I think it is entirely appropriate and even desirable to add much more information to articles about foundations (such as the Ford Foundation) about where their funding goes (which should be able to be sourced from much better sources than conspiratorial sites), and also to pages about journalists and media about where their funding comes from (again from better sources). And it should be possible to note how that could translate into potential influence or conflict of interest, again relying upon better sources rather than these fringe sites. Шизомби 22:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I heartily concur with this latter paragraph. -- HK  23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD
If this is the notable topic all the people voting to keep the article claim it is, it should be easy to add notable, reliable sources and good verifiable information. Unfortunately, I doubt this will be the case since people are allowed to give whatever baseless reason they like in the AfD. If you want to keep articles that don't fit WP policies change the policies. Esquizombi 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

reliable source
People sure can find a lot of interesting adjectives to describe other editors. I'm suprised a professional Political Research Associate can find nothing more profound to say about the concept of gatekeeping than to invoke the name of a particular fringe political activist. Isn't Cbarlet concerned about gatekeepers on the right, who try to use public school curriculums to regulate access to concepts about science?

Certianly Wikipedia editors have sufficient expertise in communications to redeem an article about gatekeepers. As stated elsewhere on this page, this concept has a long history in political science, and more broadly in communication. If somebody needs a source, here: http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Media,%20Culture%20and%20Society/gatekeeping.doc/ Or, go over to the AfD page and vote to close the gate on this concept so Wikipedia readers can go elsewhere when they develop an interest in the dynamics of gatekeeping.

Editors should be able to find sufficient anecdotes on all sides of the spectrum to balance the heavy left-gatekeeper theory that inspired one generous editor to start this article. If it's broke, fix it. WhoSaid? 22:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think the article can be improved, for crying out loud: do it. I don't see any evidence that it can be improved. Esquizombi 22:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is my personal opinion that this article is so broken as to be unsalvageable. We would do a great service to our readership by deleting this and starting from scratch. FCYTravis 22:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Those favoring (or opposing) deletion may vote at Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics). -Will Beback 03:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * " If it's broke, fix it." So when does it get 'fixed?'  The whole page is gone. Bov 21:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wtf? What happened with the content of the other page? How are people supposed to work if the old material is made unavailable? At least make a copy of it here: Talk:Gatekeeping (communication)/copy of old version! That was one big bad faith move! --Striver 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The AfD was moving towards deletion, only the rewrite and rename saved it. It was not a bad faith move, and please try to refrain from countering so many actions with accusations.  The sources used in the original version were neither reliable nor notable, among other problems.  I think the idea is that people aren't supposed to work with the old version, since there was nothing there to work with acceptably under WP policy.  There are other options for the creator (or others) to pursue that I'd identified above and elsewhere. Esquizombi 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Esquizombi, and strongly endorse FCYTravis's page move and rewrite of this article as a valid stub. The original article was hopelessly POV, was not written from reliable sources, and was heading for deletion. By contrast, the "gatekeeper" phenomenon in journalism and publishing is well known, notable, and the article can be expanded in an encyclopedic manner. MCB 02:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)