Gatekeeping Theory
Abstract
Gatekeeping is one of the media’s central roles in public life: people rely on mediators to transform information about billions of events into a manageable number of media messages. This process determines not only which information is selected, but also what the content and nature of messages, such as news, will be. Gatekeeping Theory describes the powerful process through which events are covered by the mass media, explaining how and why certain information either passes through gates or is closed off from media attention. This book is essential for understanding how even single, seemingly trivial gatekeeping decisions can come together to shape an audience’s view of the world, and illustrates what is at stake in the process.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Google's gatekeeping power is both algorithmic and infrastructural.
“Unlike traditional media gatekeepers collecting and curating information based on editorial judgment (Shoemaker and Vos, 2009), Google ' s gatekeeping power is both algorithmic and infrastructural.”
From Google Arts & Culture and the platformization of cultural heritage: Convergence, gamification, and shifting positions of institutional partners (2026) · cites this paper as Shoemaker and Vos, 2009
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization
Bozdag, E. (2013) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-013-9321-6 · Cited by 649 · see citing works
News, Politics, and Negativity
Soroka, S., & McAdams, S. (2015) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.881942 · Cited by 420 · see citing works
Negativity in political news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings
Lengauer, G., Esser, F., & Berganza, R. (2012) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884911427800 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
The rise of the social algorithm
Lazer, D. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aab1422 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
True or False: Studying the Work Practices of Professional Fact-Checkers
Micallef, N., Armacost, V., Memon, N., & Patil, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512974 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Wagner, M. W., & Gruszczynski, M. (2018) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699017702836 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Gatekeeping, ideological affinity and journalistic translation
Valdeón, R. A. (2022) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884920917296 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Sustained online amplification of COVID-19 elites in the United States
Gallagher, R. J., Doroshenko, L., Shugars, S., Lazer, D., & Foucault Welles, B. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211024957 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Social Media and the Changing Information Environment
Kraft, P. W., Krupnikov, Y., Milita, K., Ryan, J. B., & Soroka, S. (2020) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfaa015 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Carmichael, V., Adamson, G., Sitter, K. C., & Whitley, R. (2019) · Journal of Mental Health · doi:10.1080/09638237.2019.1608934 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Fisher, C., Culloty, E., Lee, J. Y., & Park, S. (2019) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2018.1519375 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Round-trip agenda setting: tracking the intermedia process over time in the ice bucket challenge
Jang, S. M., Park, Y. J., & Lee, H. (2017) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884916665405 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Jang, S. M., & Oh, Y. W. (2016) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444815583491 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Understanding media empowerment: citizen journalism in Palestine
Horoub, I. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-01526-z · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Viewing the Magazine Form Through the Lens of Classic Media Theories
Weiss, D., & Sternadori, M. (2020) · The Handbook of Magazine Studies · doi:10.1002/9781119168102.ch4 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Zhou, S. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-06216-6 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Cao, T. L. (2026) · Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565261431167
- Authors
- Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T.
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2009-09-10
- OpenAlex
- W4254342372
- Cited by
- 1,079
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 118 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 78 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 11.77
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- gatekeeping, media selection, media coverage, media attention, information filtering, news production, media audiences, media influence on public opinion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
