Gatekeeping and the Sociology of Information Management in theDigital Age
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68050/JAMS.2026.598Keywords:
Gatekeeping, Information, Sociology, Information Age, Information Management, Digital MediaAbstract
This study examines gatekeeping and the sociology of information management in the digital age, with particular attention to the changing location of informational power in networked communication environments. The digital age has fundamentally transformed the production, circulation, selection and consumption of information. Whereas traditional mass media operated largely through identifiable institutional gatekeepers such as editors, journalists, broadcasters and publishers, contemporary digital environments distribute gatekeeping functions among professional media organisations, social media users, platform companies, algorithms, artificial intelligence systems, influencers and online communities. This development raises important sociological questions about who controls information, how information acquires visibility, whose interests are represented and how social relations influence the production and management of knowledge. Drawing on Gatekeeping Theory, Network Society Theory, the article argues that digital gatekeeping has decentralized information production while simultaneously concentrating informational power in global technology corporations and algorithmic systems. The study adopted a qualitative research design based on library research and thematic analysis of scholarly literature, recent academic publications, industry reports and relevant institutional documents. The analysis indicates that digitalisation has not eliminated gatekeeping but has redistributed and multiplied it. Algorithmic recommendation, platform moderation, search-engine ranking, audience metrics, influencer activity and user-generated content have become significant forms of contemporary gatekeeping. The study further establishes that information management is not merely a technical process but a social activity shaped by institutional interests, technological structures, professional norms, economic incentives, cultural values and power relations. The study concludes that effective information management in the digital age requires a hybrid model that combines professional editorial judgement, algorithmic accountability, media and information literacy, transparent platform governance and participatory verification. It recommends stronger institutional mechanisms for transparency, ethical digital information management and continuous professional development for information and media practitioners.
References
1. Advance online publication. [https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849261446014](https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849261446014)
2. Albu, O. B., & Christensen, L. T. (2024). Shadows in the spotlight: Navigating organizational transparency in digital contexts. Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, 76(4), 641–659.
3. Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2008). Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1493–1512. [https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20857](https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20857)
4. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.
5. Bro, P., & Kristensen, L. M. (2024). Digital gatekeeping: New platforms, producers and complexities. In S. A. Eldridge II, D. Cheruiyot, S. Banjac, & J. Swart (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital journalism studies (2nd ed., pp. 207–215). Routledge.
6. Bruns, A. (2005). Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production. Peter Lang.
7. Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 5–24. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00005.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00005.x)
8. Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
9. Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
10. Damião, Í., Reis, J. M., Almeida, P., Santos, N., & Gonçalves-Sá, J. (2025). Digital gatekeeping: An audit of search engine results shows tailoring of queries on the Israel-Palestine conflict. arXiv Preprint.
11. Diakopoulos, N. (2015). Algorithmic accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 398–415. [https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976411](https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976411)
12. Dvir-Gvirsman, S., & Ivan, L. (2026). Contextual gatekeeping in a platformized news ecology. Journalism.
13. Ferrucci, P., & Hopp, T. (2024). Reshaping the spheres: Gatekeeping as an ethical normative imperative. Journalism Practice, 20(3), 1008–1025.
14. Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64–90.
15. Gilbert, D. U., Schrage, S., & Behnam, M. (2024). Advancing the moral legitimacy of digital platforms as gatekeepers: A critical analysis from a political corporate social responsibility perspective. Journal of Business Economics, 94(7), 1115–1145.
16. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.
17. Grisold, T., Seidel, S., Heck, M., & Berente, N. (2024). Digital surveillance in organizations. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(4), 401–410.
18. Jarke, J., & Büchner, S. (2024). Who cares about data? Data care arrangements in everyday organisational practice. Information, Communication & Society, 27(4), 702–718.
19. Jędrzejewski, S. (2024). Dehumanised gatekeeping and the future of media and journalism. Review of Culture, 15(2).
20. Karlsson, M., Van Couvering, E., & Lindell, J. (2022). Publishing, sharing, and spreading online news: A case study of gatekeeping logics in the platform era. Nordicom Review, 43(2), 225–241. [https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2022-0012](https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2022-0012)
21. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics II: Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153.
22. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., Eddy, K., & Nielsen, R. K. (2025). Reuters Institute digital news report 2025. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford.
23. Nzan-Ayang, M. A. (2026). Citizen journalism and the transformation of professional news gatekeeping in Nigeria's digital era. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Review.
24. Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. Columbia University Press.
25. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
26. Puska, A. A., Baroni, L. A., & Pereira, R. (2024). Decoding the sociotechnical dimensions of digital misinformation: A comprehensive literature review. arXiv Preprint.
27. Rilinger, G. (2024). Algorithmic management and the social order of digital markets. Theory and Society, 53(5), 765–794.
28. Schroeder, R. (2024). Content moderation and the digital transformations of gatekeeping. Policy & Internet.
29. Senam, N. (2026). Mass media law and ethics (6th ed.). Inela Ventures and Publishers Ltd.
30. Senam, N., & Udo, I. P. (2015). Critical journalism and democratic governance in Nigeria. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(10), 44–49.
31. Singer, J. B. (2014). User-generated visibility: Secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space. New Media & Society, 16(1), 55–73. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813477833](https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813477833)
32. Scheffauer, R., Goyanes, M., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2024). Social media algorithmic versus professional journalists’ news selection: Effects of gate keeping on traditional and social media news trust. Journalism, 25(4), 755–778. [https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231179804](https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231179804)
33. Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. P. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. Routledge.
34. Simon, F. M. (2025). Rationalisation of the news: How AI reshapes and retools the gatekeeping processes of news organisations in the United Kingdom, United States and Germany. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. [https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251336423](https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251336423)
35. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (2014). Mediating the message in the 21st century: A media sociology perspective (3rd ed.). Routledge.
36. Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. P. (2009). Gatekeeping theory.
37. Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes: A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607–1624. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007)
38. UNESCO. (2023). Guidelines for the governance of digital platforms: Safeguarding freedom of expression and access to information through a multistakeholder approach. UNESCO.
39. Van Alstyne, M., Parker, G., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard Business Review, 94, 54–62.
40. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13(6), 893–911. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774](https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774)
41. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004)
42. Mishra, V. (2026). Media, communication, and the information society in the digital age. VS Publication, Sri Sharda Group of Institutions, Lucknow.
43. Wallace, J. (2018). Modelling contemporary gatekeeping: The rise of individuals, algorithms and platforms in digital news dissemination. Digital Journalism, 6(3), 274–293. [https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1343648](https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1343648)
44. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe.
45. White, D. M. (1950). The “gate keeper”: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27(4), 383–390.
46. Yudina, M. A. (2024). Algorithmic management in the focus of sociology of technology. RUDN Journal of Sociology, 24(3), 734–746.
47. Zamith, R., Lewis, S. C., & Appelgren, E. (2021). Participative gatekeeping: The intersection of news, audience data, newsworkers, and economics. Digital Journalism, 9(6), 775–793. [https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1869053](https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1869053)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies (JAMS) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated. Authors retain copyright of their work and grant JAMS the right of first publication.
