The "journalism is better without gatekeepers" claim reminds me of when right-wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin claimed to be "citizen journalists." Can columnists, polemicists, and opinion writers work alone and it's more or less ok? Sure. Can investigative journalists? No.

It is just the absolute height of arrogance -- really dangerous arrogance -- to claim that it's bad gatekeeping to have your work go through a newsroom, with fact-checkers and editors and people who will make sure standards are met and information being published is true.

It is indeed gate-keeping! Not everything any random person believes is true should run in the pages of the New York Times. It's worth questioning who is inside the gates and who is outside of them, and where the gates stand, but having standards is a good thing.

Frankly opinion writers and columnists are also much, much better when they have editors and are subject to rigorous fact-checking. But I worry a little less about opinion writers who understand their place in the journalistic ecosystem and don't pretend to be straight reporters.

A good, trustworthy investigative journalist who does their job with integrity does not work alone. You can't work alone. You need not just the help of others, but the expertise, experience, and, yes, sometimes reining-in of others.

Anyone who does not believe they need oversight or accountability, and who believes that institutions who formalize systems of oversight and accountability and fact-checking are "gatekeeping," is not a good journalist, or a person who is a trustworthy source of anything.