World View: Media must join resistance to hate speech

Hate speech is intended to incite violent action against a specific group of people on the basis of their gender, ethnic or national origin, religion, race disability or sexual orientation. The act of uttering or publishing it with that intent is what matters, rather than expressing a private opinion.

Europe’s migration and refugee crisis has highlighted the issue in debates over whether to welcome and help newcomers and those fleeing danger, or to close borders against them. These debates rightly focus on who is responsible for hate speech about these “others”. Is it primarily politicians, extremist parties and racist activists – or the media? Where should the line be drawn between uttering and publishing hostile prejudice? How should public policy respond at national and European levels?

Such debates are hugely amplified by Donald Trump’s executive order against refugees and all travellers from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya entering the United States. The link between this order and his campaign rhetoric against Muslims, along with the acknowledged Islamophobes in his immediate entourage, bring stereotyping and action together. Their description of the media as the opposition heads off liberal critiques of these plans and serves to legitimise their own “alternative right” media to justify the measures, for which polls show Trump has majority support.

Travel ban

Trump denies targeting Muslim states, as distinct from failing or dangerous ones, and critics note the absence of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. But the travel ban plays into the surge of white nationalism in Europe. Already, studies show huge discrepancies between the perceived and actual numbers of Muslims in different European states. An Ipsos Mori poll found that French people believe 31 per cent of the population is Muslim, compared to the real figure of 8 per cent; similar, if smaller, differences were reported from Italy, the UK, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium.

World View: the rising tide of illiberalism

---

World View: It makes sense to stick closer to Brussels than London on Brexit

---

Obama’s biggest failure was not securing a Democratic successor

---

World View: Low-tax model at heart of public discontent

---

A conference in Brussels last week, organised by the United Nations Alliance of Civilisations and the European Union, discussed how hate speech against migrants and refugees is reflected in the media. It heard views from these organisations and others dealing with such hate speech and from media representatives.

Focusing on media can misleadingly put the responsibility for hate speech on broadcasters, newspapers or social media rather than on the political and societal actors who utter inflammatory statements. Media can be aligned with them and can sometimes take the lead in stereotyping and sensationalising, but the primary responsibility for hate speech normally resides elsewhere.

The new leaders of right-wing populism, such as Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Viktor Orban or Frauke Petry, are skilled at targeting refugees and blaming immigration for social ills. Established centrist leaders and media are thereby put on the defensive. Too seldom do they refer to the costs of non-immigration for their societies or salute their welcome for strangers. Fake and distorted news thrives in these circumstances.

Brutal intervention

Trump’s brutal intervention changes that setting by provoking protests and resistance as well as support from the hard right wing. It is a sharp reminder that the rights, respect and civility shown in the hate-speech discourse were established by prolonged political and social struggles, including by journalists, publishers and their allies for a free and fair media.

Rights of self-expression should be distinguished from media freedoms in this debate. They are not the same thing. Press and media freedoms are necessary for the public good so that accurate, honest, evidence-based and correctable debate is made possible. Professionalisation of journalism along these lines helped create strong readerships and audiences. But the growing corporate and political control of media tends to undermine those values, leading to falling public trust in recent years. Social-media platforms, such as Facebook and Google, take advantage of those trends, become prime sources of news using algorithms, provide a space for hate speech and take advertising revenue from existing publishers – but deny that they are publishers too.

It is an unsustainable situation politically, commercially and ethically, for the public good and media alike. The current transatlantic political crisis will presumably include a radical shake-out of  media practice and usage in response.

Among the preventive and remedial measures discussed by this conference were restoring media ethics of accuracy, independence, impartiality, humanity and transparency as civic values to counter hate speech. Much greater emphasis on media literacy is required in education and civil society. More voice should be given to the victims rather than the perpetrators of violence. And a deeper dialogue between media and their audiences is needed.

pegillespie@gmail.com