This chapter introduces the topic of algorithms as powerful gatekeepers of information. It discusses concerns about their impact on the diversity of information exposure, spread of misinformation, and traffic to legacy news organizations. The book aims to demonstrate algorithms' gatekeeping power and study the trust and legitimacy of this power. It conceptualizes algorithmic gatekeeping as the influence of automated procedures on selecting, editing, and spreading news and information. The chapter advocates studying this issue beyond views of hard technological determinism to understand both positive and negative effects. It introduces the concepts of legitimacy and trust as important to algorithms since they are opaque, powerful systems not heavily regulated.

1. Available Open Access: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003375258
Chapter 1:
Introduction

2. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Algorithms as powerfull gatekeepers
 Concerns about political information on algorithm-controlled social media
-diversity of information
-exposure to soft news
-misinformation
-spread call to action
-traffic to legacy news organizations
-journalistic work
…
This book
demonstrates the gatekeeping power of algorithms
studies trust and legitimacy of this power

3. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Conceptualizing algorithmic gatekeeping
”the influence of automated procedures on the process of selecting, writing, editing, scheduling, repeating and
otherwise massaging information to become news” (inspired by Shoemaker et al., 2009, p. 73)
-Part of news automation
-Interactions: decentralized processes
-Involves professional communicators beyond traditional news organizations
-Normative
-Spread of misinformation?
-Diversity of viewpoints?
-Undermine deliberation?

4. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Studying algorithmic gatekeeping
Beyond technological determinism
 Hard technological determinism
-one-directional
-negative effects
-deterministic
e.g. filter bubbles and echo chambers
 Weak technological determinism
-context
-positive and negative effects
-diverse effects
-actors shape effects
e.g. supply-demand model and structuring power

5. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Algorithmic power: Legitimacy and
trust
Algorithms are opaque, powerful and not (yet) heavily regulated –> need legitimacy and trust
Legitimacy is “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper and
appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p.
574).
-Objective vs Subjective
-Sources of legitimacy
Trust is “the willingness of a trustor to be vulnerable to the actions of a trustee based on the expectations that the
trustee will perform a particular action, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al.
1995, p. 712).
-Reduces complexity
-Basis of authority

6. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Discussion questions
 Would social media like Tiktok, Facebook, Instagram or YouTube be possible without prioritization
and selection algorithms? What would that look like?
 Do you think that ”gatekeeping” is still a good metaphor to describe the ”influence of automated
procedures on the process of selecting, writing, editing, scheduling, repeating, and otherwise
massaging information to become news”. Why or why not? Can you think of other metaphors?
 Do you recognize technological deterministic discourse in current debates around generative AI
(such as ChatGPT)? Is this hard or weak technological determinism?
 Do you agree that ” automated prioritization and selection of information on social media platforms
are also forms of (quasi-)editorial judgment”(p.14) and should therefore have the same legal
protection as journalists?
 When we talk about trust we often think about trust in people or institutions. Do you think trusting
automated processes such as news algorithms is similar to trusting people or institutions? Why or
why not?
 According to the book, why do Instagram and YouTube ”exemplify what the new media environment
looks like, making them exemplary cases to study the role of algorithms in disseminating
information and in affecting communication behavior”? (p. 16).

7. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Recommended reading (open access)
Thurman, N., Lewis, S. C., & Kunert, J. (2019). Algorithms, automation, and news. Digital Journalism,
7(8): 980–992. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2019.1685395)
Helberger, N., Van Drunen, M., Eskens, S., Bastian, M., & Moeller, J. (2020). A freedom of expression
perspective on AI in the media–with a special focus on editorial decision making on social media
platforms and in the news media. European Journal of Law and Technology, 11(3)
(https://ejlt.org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/752)
Wallace, J. (2018). Modelling contemporary gatekeeping: The rise of individuals, algorithms and
platforms in digital news dissemination. Digital Journalism, 6(3), 274–293.
(https://www.mediachange.ch/media/pdf/publications/Wallace2017_Digital_Gatekeeping.pdf, Green
Open Access)
Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J., Trilling, D., Möller, J., Bodó, B., de Vreese, C. H., & Helberger, N. (2016).
Should we worry about filter bubbles? Internet Policy Review. Journal on Internet Regulation, 5(1): 1–
16. (https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/should-we-worry-about-filter-bubbles)
Bandy, J., & Diakopoulos, N. (2020). # tulsaflop: A case study of algorithmically-influenced collective
action on tiktok. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.07716 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.07716)

8. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Available Open Access: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003375258
About: