Journalists as targets of hate speech. How German journalists perceive the consequences for themselves and how they cope with it

Table of contents

Bibliographic information


Cover of Volume: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Volume 7 (2018), Issue 4
Open Access Full access

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Volume 7 (2018), Issue 4


Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright Year
2018
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Chapter information


Open Access Full access

Volume 7 (2018), Issue 4

Journalists as targets of hate speech. How German journalists perceive the consequences for themselves and how they cope with it


Authors:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007


Preview:

Journalists around the world have increasingly become a target of hate speech in recent years. This is also true for Germany. Since journalists fulfil a public duty in democratic societies, there is reason for concern. As previous research shows, hateful verbal attacks may not only lead to negative emotions and cognitions, but also impair journalistic work. Therefore, this study is concerned with the perceived consequences of hate speech against journalists and the coping strategies used. Results from our quantitative online survey show that a considerable number of German journalists is targeted personally by hate speech. A majority of journalists sees this as a growing problem and assumes that hate speech negatively affects the sentiment towards journalists in society. Moreover, hate speech against journalists can cause negative emotions such as worries and anger, but also strengthens the feeling of confirmation in journalistic work. In line with that, journalists rather use coping strategies to deal with the negative emotions and thoughts triggered by hate speech than applying means to prevent further incidents of hate speech. However, feeling angry, threatened, and confirmed in journalistic work in reaction to hate speech contributes to the latter problem-focused coping.

Bibliography


  1. Bard, M., & Sangrey, D. (1986). The crime victim’s book. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  2. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037// 1089-2680.5.4.323 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  3. Benight, C. C. (2012). Understanding human adaptation to traumatic stress exposure. Beyond the medical model. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026245 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  4. Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery. The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1129−1148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.008 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  5. Binns, A. (2017). Fair game? Journalists’ experiences of online abuse. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 6, 183–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/ajms.6.2.183_1 Buchanan, M., & Keats, P. (2011). Coping with traumatic stress in journalism. A critical Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  6. ethnographic study. International Journal of Psychology, 46, 127–135. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/00207594.2010.532799 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  7. Chen, G. M., & Pain, P. (2017). Normalizing online comments. Journalism Practice, 11, 876–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1205954 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  8. Chen, G. M., Pain, P., Chen, V. Y., Mekelburg, M., Springer, N., & Troger, F. (2018). ‘You really have to have a thick skin.’ A cross-cultural perspective on how online harassment influences female journalists. Journalism. Advance online publication. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884918768500 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  9. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  10. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2004). Understanding words that wound. Boulder: Westview Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  11. Domingo, D. (2008). Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms. Dealing with an uncomfortable myth. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 680–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00415.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  12. Erjavec, K., & Kovačič, M. (2012). ‘You don’t understand, this is a new war!’ Analysis of hate speech in news web sites’ comments. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 899– 920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.619679 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  13. European Federation of Journalists (EFJ). (2017). There can be no press freedom where journalists work in fear, end impunity! Retrieved from http://europeanjournalists.org/ blog/2017/10/31/there-can-be-no-press-freedom-where-journalists-work-in-fear-end-impunity/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  14. Fedler, F. (2004). Insiders’ stories. Coping with newsroom stress. An historical perspective. American Journalism, 21, 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08821127.2004.10677596 Fischer, A. H., & Roseman, I. J. (2007). Beat them or ban them: The characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  15. 93, 103–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.103 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  16. Flanders, C. E. (2015). Bisexual health. A daily diary analysis of stress and anxiety. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 319–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533. 2015.1079202 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  17. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 2136617 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  18. Freedom House. (2018a). Freedom in the world 2018. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_2018_Final_SinglePage.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  19. Freedom House. (2018b). Freedom in the world 2018. Germany profile. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/germany Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  20. Fries, S. (2018). Hass und Hetze. Bedrohte Journalisten vermissen Solidarität [Hate and agitation. Threatened journalists miss solidarity]. deutschlandfunk.de. Retrieved from https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/hass-und-hetze-bedrohte-journalisten-vermissen-solidaritaet.2907.de.html?dram:article_id=427133 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  21. Frieze, I., Hymer, S., & Greenberg, M. (1987). Describing the crime victim. Psychological reactions to victimization. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 299– 315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.18.4.299 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  22. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212– 228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  23. Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M., Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D., & Ulmanu, M. (2016). The dark side of Guardian comments. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www. theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  24. Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2017). Exposure to online hate in four nations. A cross-national consideration. Deviant Behavior, 38, 254–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.108 0/01639625.2016.1196985 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  25. Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Zapf, D. (2002). Workplace bullying and stress. In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Historical and current perspectives on stress and health (pp. 293–333). Oxford: Elsevier. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  26. Hülsen, I. (2018). Misstrauen gegen Medien. „… dass ich ständig belehrt werden, was ich zu denken habe“ [Distrust of the media. „… that I am constantly taught what to think”]. Spiegel Online. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/journalismuskrise-warum-viele-leser-den-medien-misstrauen-a-1195175.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  27. Jandura, O. (2011). Fehler durch Nichtmessen in der Journalismusforschung [Errors due to non-measurement in journalism research]. In O. Jandura, T. Quandt & J. Vogelgesang (Eds.), Methoden der Journalismusforschung [Methods of journalism research] (pp. 189–202). Wiesbaden: VS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  28. Klein, C. T., & Helweg-Larsen, M. (2002). Perceived control and the optimistic bias. A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Health, 17, 437–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 0887044022000004920 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  29. Kobilke, L. (2017). Lügenpresse: Über die Verbreitung und Verwendung eines umstrittenen Begriffs im Onlinenetzwerk von PEGIDA [Lying Press. On the distribution and use of a controversial term in PEGIDA’s online network]. Unpublished Master Thesis: LMU Munich. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  30. Kühne, R., Weber, P., & Sommer, K. (2015). Beyond cognitive framing processes: anger mediates the effects of responsibility framing on the preference for punitive measures: beyond cognitive framing processes. Journal of Communication, 65, 259–279. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12151 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  31. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  32. Leets, L. (2002). Experiencing hate speech. Perceptions and responses to anti-Semitism and antigay speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 341–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/15404560.00264 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  33. Lilienthal, V., & Neverla, I. (Eds). (2017). Lügenpresse – Anatomie eines politischen Kampfbegriffs [Lying Press – Anatomy of a political battle term]. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  34. Löfgren Nilsson, M., & Örnebring, H. (2016). Journalism under threat. Intimidation and harassment of Swedish journalists. Journalism Practice, 10, 880–890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1164614 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  35. Luszczynska, A., Benight, C. C., & Cieslak, R. (2009). Self-efficacy and health-related outcomes of collective trauma. A systematic review. European Psychologist, 14, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.51 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  36. Matsuda, M. J. (1989). Public response to racist speech. Considering the victim’s story. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  37. Michigan Law Review, 87, 2320–2381. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1289306 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  38. Nielsen, L. B. (2002). Subtle, pervasive, harmful. Racist and sexist remarks in public as hate speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 265–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/15404560.00260 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  39. Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying. A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 26, 309–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267837 3.2012.734709 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  40. Norris, F. H., & Kaniasty, K. (1996). Received and perceived social support in times of stress. A test of the social support deterioration deterrence model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 498–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.498 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  41. Novak, R. J., & Davidson, S. (2013). Journalists reporting on hazardous events. Constructing protective factors within the professional role. Traumatology, 19, 313–322. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534765613481854 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  42. Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects. Advances in theory and research (pp. 252– 268). New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  43. Preuß, M., Tetzlaff, F., & Zick, A. (2017). “Publizieren wird zur Mutprobe.” Studie zur Wahrnehmung von und Erfahrung mit Angriffen unter Journalist_innen [“Publishing becomes a test of courage.” Study on the perception and experience of attacks among journalists]. Retrieved from https://mediendienst-integration.de/fileadmin/Dateien/ Studie-hatespeech.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  44. Prochazka, F., Weber, P., & Schweiger, W. (2016). Effects of incivility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalism quality. Journalism Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1161497 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  45. Reporter ohne Grenzen (Reporters without Borders, RwB). (2016). Rangliste der Pressefreiheit 2017. Nahaufnahme Deutschland [Ranking of the Freedom of the Press 2017. Close-up Germany]. Retrieved from https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/uploads/ tx_lfnews/media/ROG-Nahaufnahme_Deutschland_2017_03.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  46. Roseman, I. J. (2001). A model of appraisal in the emotion system. Integrating research, theory, and applications. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: theory, methods, research (pp. 68–91). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  47. Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44, 695–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405058216 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  48. Singer, J. B., & Ashman, I. (2009). ‘Comment is free, but facts are sacred.’ User generated content and ethical constructs at The Guardian. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 24, 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08900520802644345 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  49. Smith, A. J., Felix, E. D., Benight, C. C., & Jones, R. T. (2017). Protective factors, coping appraisals, and social barriers predict mental health following community violence. A prospective test of social cognitive theory. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 30, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22197 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  50. Springer, N., & Kümpel, A. S. (2018). User-generated (dis)content. Eine Literatursynopse zur Nutzung der Kommentarfunktion auf Online-Nachrichtenseiten [User-generated (dis)content. A literary synopsis for the use of commentary functions on online news pages]. In C. Nuernbergk & C. Neuberger (Eds.), Journalismus im Internet: Profession – Partizipation – Technisierung [Journalism on the Internet: Profession – participation – technology] (pp. 241–271). Wiesbaden: VS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  51. Steindl, N., Lauerer, C., & Hanitzsch, T. (2017). Journalismus in Deutschland. Aktuelle Befunde zu Kontinuität und Wandel im deutschen Journalismus [Journalism in Germany. Current findings on continuity and change in German journalism]. Publizistik, 62, 401–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11616-017-0378-9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  52. Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school. A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277– 287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  53. Torres, L., & Ong, A. D. (2010). A daily diary investigation of Latino ethnic identity, discrimination, and depression. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 561–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020652 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  54. Weischenberg, S., Malik, M., & Scholl, A. (2006). Die Souffleure der Mediengesellschaft: Report über die Journalisten in Deutschland [The prompters of media society: A report on journalists in Germany]. Germany: UVK. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  55. Worlds of Journalism (WJS). (2018). Aggregated data on key variables. Journalists in the newsroom. Years of professional experience website. Retrieved from http://www.worldsofjournalism.org/research/2012-2016-study/data-and-key-tables/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  56. Young, M. J., Tiedens, L. Z., Jung, H., & Tsai, M.-H. (2011). Mad enough to see the other side. Anger and the search for disconfirming information. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 10–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930903534105 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  57. Ziegele, M., & Jost, P. B. (2016). Not funny? The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650216671854 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  58. Ziegele, M., Springer, N., Jost, P., & Wright, S. (2017). Online user comments across news and other content formats. Multidisciplinary perspectives, new directions. Studies in Communication and Media, 6, 315–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  59. Zerback, T., & Fawzi, N. (2017). Can online exemplars trigger a spiral of silence? Examining the effects of exemplar opinions on perceptions of public opinion and speaking out. New Media & Society, 19, 1034–1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625942 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499

Citation


Download RIS Download BibTex