“Today’s editors, technicians, and cultural gatekeepers – the experts across an
array of fields – are necessary to help us sift through what’s important and
what’s not, what is credible from what is unreliable, what is worth spending our
time on as opposed to the white noise that can be safely ignored.”
First and foremost, I do not agree. Yes, regulation is necessary; censorship is not.
Project Censored publishes articles that have been kept out of the public eye. They have been doing so for 35 years, and the amount of issues that I have never even heard about astounds me.
Gatekeepers and editors are facilitating this censorship. With power comes corruption, and the power to regulate has become the power to virtually eliminate.
A very disturbing example is the information about the autopsy reports of many civilians in US military prisons in the Middle East that showed they had likely been tortured to death. That 99% of US daily newspapers didn’t pick up the story is appalling.
This is just one of many examples that I could find of gatekeepers rejecting important articles and information. If truth like this is what is being deemed “white noise” by media gatekeepers, then we need to eliminate these media gatekeepers.
I do see that there is a need for regulation so that people don’t have a mental breakdown from the ridiculous amount of information they get from a search online, but the cost outweighs the need.
If having gatekeepers and editors means that the truth is going to be hidden from the public, then the gatekeepers and editors need someone editing them and making sure they aren’t omitting important truths.
Journalism is supposed to be about the truth, and to me it looks like we aren’t necessarily getting that anymore.