Reporting on Hate Speech: A Careful Balance Between Information and Glorification

 Kat Willette 

kw154717@ohio.edu 

In this era of mass information spreading more quickly than we can control, it is now easier than ever for groups to gain traction online. In fact, many movements have started online and strictly maneuvered within the walls of this seemingly lawless matrix. While some movements that gained a following through social media and online reporting have made remarkable progress for marginalized groups within the United States, unfortunately the internet amplifies the voices of other groups that promote hateful language, radical ideas and racial slurs as well. 

The ability for the internet to rapidly accelerate any cause, humanitarian or harmful, has made reporting in the 21st century frustratingly more difficult. Today, journalists must walk the never-ending tightrope between giving consumers enough information to feel safe and educated, yet omit enough detail so as not to give 'kudos' to the hate group itself. 

Often times, reporters are faced with harsh deadline pressures, public scrutiny and the responsibility to get ratings for their organizations, leading to the sensationalization of a hate group's actions. According to United Nations Human Rights office of the High Commissioner writer, Aidan White, "It is not unusual to find mass media recruited to support the cause of intolerance. Too often, compliant media are accomplices in creating public insecurity and ignorance" (White). Many times, reporters feed into mass panic and intolerance by bringing specific platform points or group members to light. 

Source: Nieman Lab

The issue of reporters magnifying hate groups' causes by using members names, showing footage of rallies for extended periods of time or focusing any media attention on these groups at all has been publicly criticized as a means of enabling more people to spit hate speech or commit heinous hate crimes. According to Associated Press,  "Critics say giving the assailants notoriety offers little help to understand the attacks and instead fuels celebrity-style coverage that only encourages future attacks" (Pane). With this, Pane is stating that instead of publishing the names and biographies of certain people, instead focus on the details of the crime and the status of any victims. 

While Pane was speaking in the context of indescribably tragic school shootings, the same philosophy can be applied to hate speech groups; do not publish any member's name, a group name, or platform causes. To publish any more than the general facts and location of the gathering is to ensure the story does not stay within the control of the media. 

Overall, reporting on hate speech and hate crimes is an extremely sensitive field. Reporters must make sure they are gathering not just accurate facts, but the right facts that will both inform and protect their followers without further inflaming the altercation.