One of
the greatest professional challenges for journalists covering an election
campaign is the question of how to report inflammatory language and sentiments conveyed
during political campaigns. From a journalist’s point of view, this challenge is
a balancing act between two potentially conflicting ethical obligations: reporting
accurately and declining to report on anything that will discriminate on
racial, religious, national, gender, or other grounds.
In
practice, however, and while using professional reporting practices, the
dilemma may be more imagined than real. Balance is usually the key in ensuring
the critical balance. Balance involves citing differing or opposing viewpoints.
It also entails placing the words of politicians in accurate contexts.
In
certain circumstances, accurate reporting of inflammatory or hateful language or
images may serve to undermine intentions of the source, in this case parties or
candidates. Often, extremist politicians present themselves to an electorate as
“moderate” and simply articulating widely held sentiments (whether it be immigrants,
national minorities, gender, or the like). In addition to exposing inflammatory
comments and actions of parties and candidates, and thereby potentially undermining
their broader credibility, it is also the responsibility of the media to
document the consequences of such words and actions. If members of an audience leave
a political rally and inflict violence on opponents or supporters, this is
vital context that must be reported.
The
balancing act of reporting hate speech and actions plays a positive and useful
purpose. Not only does it provide an opportunity for factual content of inflammatory
messages to be challenged, but it also gives voice to those who are the targets
of the inflammatory messages, thereby nulling the dehumanizing effects of hate
speech and actions.
More
broadly, accurate reporting of hate speech and actions is a valuable early
warning tool, indicating the potential for serious social conflict or human
rights violations within a campaign. One of the most important arguments against banning hate speech is that it provides
an opportunity for a society to address causes of, and solutions for, prejudice
and hatred, rather than avoiding the topic altogether. Responsible media
reporting plays a crucial part in this. For more information, see section Hate Speech – Operators of the
Regulator, within the chapter: Legal Framework for Media and Elections.
