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.