One of the greatest professional challenges for journalists covering an election campaign is how to report inflammatory language and sentiments spoken during political campaigning. From the journalist’s point of view, the challenge is how to balance two potentially conflicting ethical obligations: to report accurately and not to write anything that will discriminate on racial, religious, national, gender or other grounds.

In practice, however, using good professional reporting practices, the dilemma may be more imagined than real. As well as the obligation to report accurately, the journalist also has to be balanced. Balance involves citing differing or opposing viewpoints. It also entails placing the words of politicians in an accurate context.

Sometimes accurate reporting of inflammatory or hateful language may serve to undermine the intentions of the politician using such words. Often extremist politicians present themselves to the electorate as “moderate” who are simply articulating widely held sentiments (about immigrants, national minorities, or whatever). Exposing the words that they use when speaking to their own supporters at political rallies may actually undermine their broader credibility. It will also be the responsibility of the media to document the consequences of such speech. If militants leave a political rally and inflict violence on opponents or members of demonized communities, this is vital context that must be reported.

Even when this is not the case, the balancing of hate speech by the voices of those who are being maligned play s a positive and useful purpose. Not only does it provide the opportunity for the factual content of hate speech to be challenged. By giving a voice to those who are being demonized, it humanizes them – dehumanization being the immediate purpose of most hate speech – and creates the possibility of sympathy.

More broadly, accurate reporting of hate speech is a valuable early warning tool, indicating potentially more serious social conflict or human rights violations to come. One of the most important arguments against banning hate speech is that it provides an opportunity to address the causes of prejudice and hatred rather than driving them underground. Responsible media reporting plays a crucial part in this.