►In 1927, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, “If there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Decades later, Justice William Brennan described the news media’s special societal purpose as fostering “robust, uninhibited, and wide open” debate.
At their best, today’s audience comment areas have become an online marketplace of ideas or a digital public sphere, offering lively debates and reader observations that can correct or contextualize reporting. Yet, since this version of the SPJ code was adopted in 2014, some news organizations have closed or limited audience comment sections because of the abuse and vitriol from some in the audience.
Lynn Walsh of Trusting News said hosting a space for community conversation “should be a goal for all journalists,” but without enforced rules “the conversation space isn’t productive.” In 2021, a Poynter essay argued that audience comment sections are vital, if well maintained by news organizations to keep conversations civil.
Sources:
- “Whitney v. California,” http://tinyurl.com/23wshknt
- “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,” http://tinyurl.com/47fxfnk7
- “Abrams v. U.S.,” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/250/616/
- https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262581080/the-structural-transformation-of-the-public-sphere/
- https://ethicscentral.org/ethicscode/
- https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/dont-read-the-comments-for-news-sites-it-might-be-worth-the-effort/
►Among the toughest of contemporary journalism problems is whether, and how, to cover speech and ideas that are beyond the pale of objective reality and/or may well cross the line into hateful speech.
The University of Wisconsin’s Center for Journalism Ethics has published guidelines about covering such speech without amplifying it, noting that journalists often “must cover hateful speech so that it is exposed to public scrutiny.”
Scholar Whitney Phillips in 2018 published The Oxygen of Amplification, which included recommendations to cover demonstrable falsehoods and viewpoints that many would consider odious.
Sources:
- https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2020/06/29/a-guide-to-covering-hate-speech-without-amplifying-it/
- https://datasociety.net/library/oxygen-of-amplification/
►While it is important to “support the open civil exchange of views,” journalists should protect themselves from trolls and others who harass or make intentionally outrageous comments. Research shows this is particularly aimed at women and journalists of color.
At the 2022 SPJ convention, a panel focused on what journalists can and should do to limit uncivil comments, particularly those aimed at journalists.