From Agenda-Setting to Algorithmic Gatekeeping: Rethinking Media Power in the Digital Age

Öz

The digital age has profoundly transformed the functioning of media systems across production, distribution, and circulation processes. While classical communication theories such as agenda-setting and gatekeeping long provided reliable frameworks for explaining the societal impact of media, the rise of social media platforms, the direct involvement of users as content producers, and the invisible regulatory role of algorithms have increasingly exposed the limitations of these approaches. Artificial intelligence–based recommendation systems and algorithmic ranking mechanisms now determine which news and information enter circulation, bringing “algorithmic gatekeeping” to the forefront of theoretical debate. This study is a conceptual review based on a literature search conducted in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for the period 2010–2025. The analysis identifies where classical theories fall short in the digital context and discusses how algorithmic processes restructure media power through three operational dimensions: visibility allocation, threshold adjustment, and circulation velocity. Findings indicate that digital media not only shape the distribution of content but also fundamentally influence the scope, quality, and democratic plurality of public debate. By sharpening the conceptual boundaries of “algorithmic agenda-setting” and “algorithmic gatekeeping,” the study contributes to the literature at a theoretical level and proposes a conceptual framework with testable propositions for future research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Agenda-Setting
• Gatekeeping
• Algorithmic Media
• Public Sphere
• Digital Communication
• Media Power
• Democracy
• Social Media Algorithms

Gündem Belirlemeden Algoritmik Eşik Bekçiliğine: Dijital Çağda Medya Gücünün Yeniden Düşünülmesi

Öz

Dijital çağ, medya sistemlerinin işleyişini üretim, dağıtım ve dolaşım süreçlerinin tümünde köklü biçimde dönüştürmüştür. Gündem belirleme ve eşik bekçiliği gibi klasik iletişim kuramları, uzun yıllar boyunca medyanın toplumsal etkilerini açıklamada güvenilir çerçeveler sunmuş olsa da, sosyal medya platformlarının yükselişi, kullanıcıların içerik üretiminde doğrudan aktör haline gelmesi ve algoritmaların görünmez düzenleyici rol üstlenmesi, bu kuramların sınırlarını belirginleştirmiştir. Yapay zekâ tabanlı öneri sistemleri ve algoritmik sıralama mekanizmaları, haberlerin ve bilgilerin hangi önceliklerle dolaşıma gireceğini tayin ederek “algoritmik eşik bekçiliği”ni yeni bir kuramsal tartışma odağına taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma, 2010–2025 dönemini kapsayan ve Google Scholar, Scopus ile Web of Science veri tabanlarında yürütülen literatür taramasına dayalı kavramsal bir derlemedir. Analiz, klasik kuramların dijital bağlamda yetersiz kalan noktalarını açığa çıkarmakta; görünürlük tahsisi, erişim eşiği ayarlaması ve dolaşım hızının mimarisi olmak üzere üç işlem boyutunda algoritmik süreçlerin medya gücünü yeniden yapılandırma biçimlerini tartışmaktadır. Bulgular, dijital medyanın yalnızca içerik dağıtımını değil, kamusal tartışmaların kapsamını, niteliğini ve demokratik çoğulculuğun işleyişini de köklü biçimde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Çalışma, “algoritmik gündem belirleme” ve “algoritmik eşik bekçiliği” kavramlarını keskinleştirerek literatüre kuramsal düzeyde katkı sunmakta ve gelecek araştırmalar için sınanabilir önermeler içeren bir kuramsal çerçeve önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gündem Belirleme
• Eşik Bekçiliği
• Algoritmik Medya
• Kamusal Alan
• Dijital İletişim
• Medya Gücü
• Demokrasi
• Sosyal Medya Algoritmaları

Kaynakça

1. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2),211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
2. Anderson, C. W. (2011). Deliberative, agonistic, and algorithmic audiences. International Journal of Communication, 5, 529–547. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/884
3. Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147
4. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x Bodó, B., Helberger, N., Eskens, S. & Möller, J. (2019). Interested in diversity: The role of user attitudes, algorithmic feedback loops, and news consumption. Digital Journalism, 7(2), 206–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1521292
5. Bucher, T. (2018). If... Then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
6. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.
7. Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Polity Press.
8. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford University Press.

9. Cobbe, J. (2020). Algorithmic censorship by social platforms: Power and resistance. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 739–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00429-0
10. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.
11. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, & K. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.
12. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
13. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. MIT Press.
14. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon.
15. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100201
16. McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.
17. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
18. Napoli, P. M. (2015). Social media and the public interest: Governance of news platforms in the realm of individual and algorithmic gatekeepers. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.12.003
19. Napoli, P. M. (2019). Social media and the public interest: Media regulation in the disinformation age. Columbia University Press.
20. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
21. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
22. Prem, E. & Krenn, B. (2023). On algorithmic content moderation. In E. Prem (Ed.), Introduction to Digital Humanism (pp. 481–493). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45304-5_30
23. Qi, J., Liang, X., Wang, Y. & Cheng, H. (2018). Discrete time information diffusion in online social networks: micro and macro perspectives. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 11872. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29733-8
24. Rader, E. & Gray, R. (2015). Understanding user beliefs about algorithmic curation in the Facebook News Feed. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2015) (pp. 173–182). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702174
25. Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act). (2022). Official Journal of the European Union, L 265, 1–66. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925
26. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act). (2022). Official Journal of the European Union, L 277, 1–102. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending certain Union legislative acts. (2024). Official Journal of the European Union, L 237, 1–112. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689
27. Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28–41. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2010-12-20/political-power-social-media
28. Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. P. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. Routledge.
29. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
30. Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12087 Trielli, D., & Diakopoulos, N. (2020). Partisan search behavior and Google results in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Information, Communication & Society, 25(1), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1764605
31. Tüfekçi, Z. (2015). Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 13, 203–218. https://ctlj.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/13.2_2_Tufekci-final.pdf
32. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c
33. Weaver, D. (2007). Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00333.x
34. White, D. M. (1950). The “gate keeper”: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27(4), 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769905002700403
35. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.