RE-EXAMINING ‘‘GATEKEEPING’’How journalists communicate the truth aboutpower to the publicLeo BowmanJournalists in the ‘‘new media’’ era confront important questions as to whether, or how, theyadapt their professional practices to a new interactive on-line form that allows citizens to becomeinvolved in the news-making process. This paper seeks to re-establish the relevance of traditionaljournalism practices in the modern era and suggests that they will remain very much a part of the‘‘new journalism’’ beyond the digital divide. It does so through examining how broadcastjournalism interviews challenge authorities in the ‘‘public interest’’, and suggests, in conclusion,that such practices remain undiminished by the technical, and accompanying social, changes thatare driving the ‘‘new media’’.KEYWORDS gate watcher; gatekeeper; interviews; neutrality; new media; objectivityIntroductionIn his 2005 text, Bruns coins the term ‘‘Gate watcher’’ to situate the ‘‘new media’’ asopen to public opinion, through interactive online ‘‘conversations’’. His critique of the ‘‘oldmedia’’ implicitly situates the ‘‘gatekeeping’’ activities of the ‘‘professional’’ journalists*who gather and select radio, television and newspaper news to ‘‘present’’ to the public*as counterproductive to the public interest. These conclusions parallel 1970s sociologicaland cultural studies positions that argue that journalists working in Liberal Democraticstates write stories that favour the ruling government and business elites. Authors such asTuchman (1978) and Hall et al. (1978) find that, in showing ‘‘due deference’’ to authorities,journalists re-enforce such power structures; a position that would contradict their claimsthat they conduct a ‘‘professional’’ ‘‘Fourth Estate’’ critique of the Liberal Democraticinstitutions of parliament, the executive, and the judiciary. This paper does not deny thatthe particular political economic structure that underpins Liberal Democracy is a powerfulstructuring force, but seeks to argue that the powerful sources that people its institutionsare not immune from challenge, in the ‘‘public interest’’. I agree with the contention ofClayman et al. that static models of journalism are ‘‘inadequate to capture the complexityand dynamism of actual journalistic practice’’ (2007, p. 24). I further agree with theircontention that: ‘‘one way to advance understanding of journalismstate relationships isto isolate the conditions under which news becomes more independent and critical’’(Clayman et al., 2007, p. 24).In Bowman (2006) I show that Australian journalists, who interviewed authoritiesduring the 1998 ‘‘Waterfront Dispute’’, persistently challenged their positions. This paperdeparts from the more macro emphasis of that earlier work to focus on how particularlyJournalism Practice, Vol. 2, No 1, 2008ISSN 1751-2786 print/1751-2794 online/08/010099-14–2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/17512780701768550journalists challenge powerful sources; but simultaneously distance from a criticism of theperson interviewed.The Parameters of Journalism Interview ChallengesConversational Analytic (CA) techniques (Clayman and Heritage, 2002) can test theimplied conclusion that journalists’ work tends to reinforce the Liberal Democratic statusquo, through an empirical examination of what happens in challenging interviewsbetween journalists and their institutional masters. Clayman concludes from his 1988studies of journalists’ interview approaches that challenging questions are acceptable ifjournalists ‘‘distance’’ from the content, through avoiding an overt statement of opinion.How, particularly, challenging work is ‘‘done’’ is the subject of papers on legal cross-examination (Drew, 1992) and on journalism challenging questions (Rosenblum, 1987).Drew notes that, in constructing challenges to witness testimony, legal counselconstructs a ‘‘puzzle’’ through asking questions that present a stark contrast with previoustestimony from the witness. Drew shows that, rather than simply denying the impliedchallenge to their credibility, witnesses often seek to repair this credibility, throughpresenting new ‘‘facts’’ to explain the apparent discrepancy as illustrated (Drew, 1992, p.467) from the extract below. In the extracts drawn from Drew’s studies, the letter A standsfor legal attorney and the letter W for witness.A: And during that entire evening Miss (name) it’s your testimony that there was noindication as far as you could tell that the defendant had been drinking?W: No.A: Now Miss (name) when you were interviewed by the police some time later thatevening didn’t you tell the police that the defendant had been drinking?W: No.A: Didn’t you tell them that?W: I told them there was a cooler in the car and I didn’t open it.In this sequence, the witness initially denies that she told the police that thedefendant had been drinking. However, she adds to that denial what she told police atthat time (i.e. that there were drinks in a cooler in the defendant’s car). So the witnessconstructs her accounts then, and now, as consistent, while also providing for counsel’s‘‘mistaken’’ presentation of the events. Drew (1992) states that the defensiveness ofthe witness’s answer orients to the potential inconsistency in her story. She constructs thecontrary version of events to rebut the potential damaging inferences that could persuadethe jury that her whole account of the alleged rape lacks credibility.In this case, the counsel’s contrastive version is important in attempts to have thejury consider that the witness’s actions are inconsistent with those of a ‘‘victim’’ and thewitness’s response is important in seeking to repair the credibility of her initial account.Drew (1992, p. 508) notes that such questioning challenges allow legal counsel toselectively point up apparent inconsistencies in witness testimony and to ask the witnessto account for these specific discrepancies. In Drew’s (1992) data, legal counsel selectsspecific events from an entire sequence as important, when other characterisations arepossible. Drew (1992, p. 486) uses a further extract from the rape trial to strengthen hisargument.100 LEO BOWMANA: Well you had some fairly lengthy conversations with the defendant didn’t you on