The study “Becoming a Target: Journalists’ Perspectives on Anti-Press Discourse and Experiences with Hate Speech” by Čedomir Markov and Ana Đorđević from University of Belgrade interviewed 20 Serbian journalists on their perspectives on encountering hate speech directed at them.
Hostile anti-press discourse should be differentiated from legitimate press criticism that can serve a corrective function. Kim and Shin (2022) argue that an important characteristic of contemporary anti-press discourse is that it is charged with hostile emotions like contempt and disgust.
Previous scholarly work has conceptualized hate speech against journalists. Abusive verbal expressions towards journalists constitute hate speech because they are an increasingly demonized professional group. Themes in the hate speech include claims that journalists are part of a corrupt elite opposed to the people. The hate speech also makes use of sexism and racism when applicable due to the characteristics of the journalists.
The impact of hate speech, particularly by politicians, is that it may lead to other forms of violence. When hate speech is prevalent, it also becomes normalized rather than being seen as a transgression of social norms. Hate speech by itself also has an effect on the journalists’ physical, psychological, and digital safety.
Coping strategies against hate speech, that have been identified in research, include “suppression, relaxation techniques, and self-reliance, as well as sharing and connecting with other colleagues, altering their texts, and managing the hateful content they are exposed to”, according to the authors citing Miller and Lewis (2022) and Holton et al. (2021). There are also institutional, social strategies such as legal action, but these are often lacking and journalists are pushed towards personal strategies.
The context of the study is Serbia, which over two decades after Slobodan Milošević is still struggling to maintain democratic institutions, being ranked the lowest in 2020 since 2001. According to Freedom House, its status is that of a “transitional or hybrid regime” – below that of a “semi-consolidated democracy”. Thus, the context is appropriately outside that of established Western democracies.
The method was to select 20 Serbian journalists using “theoretical sampling strategy” (Mason 1996) and conducting semi-structured interviews with them. The sample comprised 13 female and seven male journalists. Women were intentionally overrepresented because of the previous studies consensus that women face harassment disproportionately. They were diversely from different regions in Serbia and included journalists working online, in print, and in broadcast media. Thematic analysis was conducted on the interviews.
The interviewees described ad hominem attacks as being employed in lieu of actual arguments and being highly dependent not on content, but on who has published it. Traitor, foreign mercenary, and fascist were common labels applied to journalists. In addition to insults, threats of physical violence were also employed.
According to the participants, the most common trigger for hate speech was investigative journalism that uncovered the wrongdoings of the government and big business – such as corruption between the two. Indeed, common exacerbators of hate speech were pro-government outlets such as tabloids and tv stations, who might conduct smear campaigns on journalists they dislike.
Troll armies were also identified in hate speech via sudden surges of criticism or massed threats, that suggest organized response rather than organically born criticism. There were also extremely partisan, lone wolf haters that went far in their hate coming from both extreme right and extreme left. Overall, the participants observed numerous examples of hate speech.
A common narrative arc emerged from the experiences. Targeted journalists were frequently labeled traitors and foreign mercenaries, and their patriotism was called into question in addition to imputing other sinister motives to them. Certain topics, such as migrants and sexual minorities or Kosovo were taboo in the Serbian society that was described as authoritarian.
The repeated exposures to hate speech caused very few to feel angry. Rather, participants described flatness and numbness, as well as an emotional roller coaster as results. The authors note that there were significant signs of psychological trauma, followed by emotional instability, withdrawal, and isolation. A quarter of the sample also described physical health deterioration symptoms.
Coping strategies used personally by the participants included getting used to the hate speech, using medication to suppress emotions, and setting personal boundaries to themselves, involving positive thinking and standing up to oneself. Professional coping strategies included deleting or blocking messages or simply not reading them, and staying focused on the job.
There were also social coping strategies such as relying on friends and family. The latter was described as complicated, as journalists did not want to involve their families in the hate. Professional associations and journalist organizations also write about the topic and offer support. Some even used the legal system, such as asking for police protection.
The professional consequences for the hate remained limited, despite the institutions’ inadequate response. The participants emphasized the importance of “keeping up the good work” despite the hate speech, and some even claimed that hate speech had made them more courageous and determined to uncover wrongdoings.
The study was consistent with previous research in that hate speech was defined as ad hominem attacks spurred by journalistic conduct. It contributes to the discussion in that it shows hate speech was mainly due to journalists professional conduct – doing their jobs. The study also revealed some Serbia-specific factors, such as the lack of democratic institutions to protect journalists and the climate of impunity for the attacks.
The article “Becoming a Target: Journalists’ Perspectives on Anti-Press Discourse and Experiences with Hate Speech” by Čedomir Markov and Ana Đorđević is in Journalism Practice. (open access).
Picture: Untitled by Mattia Ascenzo @mattia19
License: Unsplash