The ethics of reporting hate speech

As elections get under way, the prospect of political hate speech looms large. A five-point test for journalists on how to minimize damage when they report.


Extracts from “Ethics in the News”,  the report of the Ethical Journalism Network, released on  January 10, 2017.







Point One: The Position or Status of the Speaker



"Journalists and editors must understand that just because someone says something outrageous that does not make it news. "










Point Two: The Reach of the Speech

A private conversation in a public place can include the most unspeakable opinions but do relatively little harm and so would not necessarily breach the test of hate-speech. But that changes if the speech is disseminated through mainstream media or the Internet.


"Is it a short momentary, intemperate burst of invective and hatred, or is it repeated deliberately and continuously?"


Journalists also have to consider the frequency and extent of the communication – is it a short momentary, intemperate burst of invective and hatred, or is it repeated deliberately and continuously?

Answering the question of the newsworthiness and intention may be helped by considering if there is a pattern of behaviour or if it is a one-time incident. Repetition is a useful indicator of a deliberate strategy to engender hostility towards others, whether based upon ethnic, racial, religious or other form of discrimination.


Point Three: The Objectives of the Speech

Normally, ethical journalists and well-informed editors will be able to quickly identify whether the speech is deliberately intended to attack or diminish the human rights of individuals and groups. They should also know whether such speech is subject to criminal or other sanctions. It is sometimes necessary for journalists to break the rules, but they should at all times be aware of the risks when they decide to publish.

As part of the reporting process, journalists and editors have a special responsibility to place the speech in its proper context – to disclose and report what are the objectives of the speaker. It is not our intention to deliberately expose or diminish people with whom we disagree, but careful, ethical reporting always helps people better understand the context in which speech is made.


"Who are victims of the speech and what is the impact upon them, both as individuals and within their community?"


The key questions to ask are: What are the benefits to the speaker and the interests that he or she represents? Who are victims of the speech and what is the impact upon them, both as individuals and within their community?


Point Four: The Content and Form of Speech

Journalists have to judge whether the speech is provocative and direct, in what form it is made, and the style in which it is delivered. There’s a world of difference between someone sounding off in the café or the pub and speaking within a small group and a speech made in a public place, before an excitable audience.

Lots of people have offensive ideas and opinions. That’s not a crime, and it’s not a crime to make these opinions public (people do it on the internet and social networks routinely), but the words and images they use can be devastating if they incite others to violence.

Journalists ask themselves: is this speech or expression dangerous? Could it lead to prosecution under the law? Will it incite violence or promote an intensification of hatred towards others? It might be newsworthy if someone uses speech that could get them into trouble with the police, but journalists have to be wary – they, too, could find themselves facing prosecution for quoting it.


Point Five: The Economic, Social and Political Climate





They are not groups who are entitled to privileged media attention because journalists have to respect the rights of all, but they are often the victims of particular targeting.



"It may be outrageous, but is it newsworthy? What is the intention of the speaker?"




A Checklist for Tolerance



  • What will be the impact of publication?
  • Is there a danger of inflaming passions and incitement to violence?
  • Is the speech fact-based and have the claims been tested?



  • Have we avoided cliché and stereotypes?
  • Have we asked all the relevant and necessary questions?
  • Have we been sensitive to our audience?
  • Have we been temperate in use of language?
  • Do the pictures tell the story without resorting to violence and voyeurism?
  • Have we used diverse sources and included the voices of relevant minorities?
  • Does it meet standards set in editorial and ethical codes?


 3. One last look and moment of reflection is always useful before pushing the button to pub lish:

  • Have we done good work?
  • Are there any nagging doubts?

And, finally, should I ask a colleague?



Subscribe To The Newsletter

The Zee Group being a lead sponsor of the Jaipur Lit-fest  means that you get a dose of Zee News' Sudhir Chaudhary there every year, sometimes plugging one of the group's channels. This year someone from the audience asked him a direct question about fake videos to which he replied without batting an eyelid that India did not have credible institutions who could do a fair investigation.  The moderator chipped in, you have a remote, change the channel if you don't like it. Retorted a person in the audience, don't tell us what to do, improve yourselves.                                  

Catch News has just done a round of staff relocation between its Delhi, Noida and Jaipur offices. Whether you describe it as cost cutting or rationalisation depends on what you choose to believe. The moves are apparently aimed at facilitating the Rajasthan Patrika Group's plan to bring out an English daily from Jaipur, a project which has been in the works for a while. Other expansion plans such as a Malayalam version of Catch News seem to be on hold.              

View More