Presentation on theme: "Ethical Journalism Network Turning the Page of Hate Aidan White"— Presentation transcript:
Ethical Journalism Network Turning the Page of Hate Aidan White
Who we are A coalition of media professional groups from Europe and around the world committed to building trust in media and promoting principles of ethical journalism, good governance and self- regulation in the digital age
Turning the Page of Hate: A New Campaign to Promote Tolerance in Journalism Launched April 18 th 2014 in Rwanda to mark 20 anniversary of Genocide Aims to mobilise journalism at all levels against manipulation of media and journalism as weapons of hatred and incitement to violence
Case Study: Rwanda 1994: 800,000 Killed. Hate media helped organise slaughter
Hate Speech in the Media Focus Islamaphobia Anti-Semitism Genocide Religion Race relations Migration Gender equality Homosexuality
Why Campaign? To defend Journalism and Human Rights Society is based on respect for rights. These rights are set out in international conventions and standards. Humanity’s code of conduct: Universal Declaration of Human Rights International Convention on Civil and Political Rights Other international conventions – labour rights, torture, genocide, acts of war Journalism also has its own codes. There are more than 400 codes at national and global level.
Hate speech and free expression Hate speech can be a way of mobilising public support for actions that threaten the lives of others. Propaganda has always been an important strategic aspect of making war. But people are entitled to free speech, even if they hold offensive and hurtful opinions. But what are the limits? And who draws the red lines which define the frontiers of tolerance?
Challenge of Combating Hate in Media Hate speech matter of international concern since 1945 International legal prohibition over hate speech related to race and ethnicity Lack of clear definition Need for informed, careful and inclusive journalism
Case Study: Islamaphobia 2006: Mohammed Cartoons. Global row over free speech rights after cartoons caused offence to Muslims. Politically-inspired violence. At least 150 killed. 2010: United States pastor Terry Jones becomes global media story for wanting to burn the Koran. Unknown number of deaths. 2012: Inaccurate media story of anti-Muslim film, Innocence of Muslims. At least 73 killed.
Islamophobia on the March Example of stereotype in context of global “war on terror”: a mob of wild-eyed men yelling, during anti-US protests over the infamous Innocence of Muslims Film in Was this an accurate picture?
Alternative Images of Arab Men….
… and Children
But these are also out of context: how do we find the balance between image and reality?
Combating Hatred is about Telling the Story in Context According to ethical obligations: Truth Independence Impartiality Humanity Accountability
5-Point Test for Hate Speech One: The content and form of speech. Judging whether the words, gestures and manner of the speech are likely to generate intense hatred and incite violence.
5-Point Test for Hate Speech T wo: The economic, social and political climate Inflammatory speech can be particularly dangerous when made at times of social tension, the threat of war, and when there is public anxiety over political and economic conditions.
5-Point Test for Hate Speech Three: The position or status of the speaker Media-savvy and unscrupulous politicians can be skilful users of media to stir up disputes. Are they representative and influential or are they obscure, such as Pastor Terry Jones of Florida?
5-Point Test for Hate Speech Four: The reach of the speech A private conversation in a public place may include unspeakable ideas and do relatively little harm. But speech to big public audiences and dissemination through the Internet has the potential for widespread impact.
5-Point Test for Hate Speech Five: The Intention of the speech Is the objective to incite violence and intense hatred? If speech is deliberately targeting individuals and groups (in particular, marginalised communities or vulnerable minorities) journalists’ must consider the impact of publication.
Ethical Questions It is vital not to sensationalise and avoid a rush to publish. Ethical journalists will ask: 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 been temperate in use of language? Do the pictures tell the story without violence and voyeurism? Are there diverse sources and minority voices?
Remember: Ethical Journalism is not Free Expression Journalism is not free speech, it is constrained expression. It works in a framework of values. It has purpose. It is a public good. When we understand this we are better equipped to identify and deal with hate speech