Limits of the Mass Media vs. Freedom of Speech

Introduction

The basic principle of the mass media is the freedom from any government regulation and control that would imply censorship or limits on freedom of publication. The freedom of the press is often enshrined as a principle in national constitutions and international charters, such as the European Convention on Human Rights.[1] Nevertheless, there are some limits that characterize the activity of the mass media. Some of these limits, in particular limitation of hate speech, are result of the accountability. Consequently, they aren’t incompatible with media freedom, but are unavoidable components of the normal operating atmosphere of media in a healthy society.

This essay will aim to explain the following relationship: limits of the mass media vs. freedom of speech. In particular, it will elaborate the phenomenon of the hate speech and the other aspects of careless reporting (i.e. the difficulties faced while reporting on deadline, live, spontaneous). The essay will explain that the use of the hate speech by the media is typical for societies without a clear vision for their future. There are plenty of examples in the region who confirm this account. The use of the hate speech was present in Balkans before the NATO intervention in Kosovo. Serbian media have been the most influential regarding the wars in ex-Yugoslavia; they have used hate speech and promoted xenophobia, as forms of cultural violence,[2] against every nation from former Yugoslavia. This kind of speech, more or less, characterizes the Serbian media at this time;[3] it is in attendance, with a few exceptions, in the media of our country too.

The Use of the Hate Speech

Hate speech, as a form of a cultural violence, is defined as an expression that is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing, or which may incite to violence, hatred, or discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.[4] The history of the media has shown that cultural violence, its forms, can provoke the other types of violence; said simply, the hate speech can really kill. In Rwanda, for instance, the radio has become like the voice of devil, telling Hutu people the ways of slaughtering Tutsi. Hutu media have broadcast live the speeches who called on Hutu to kill Tutsi;[5] this fact shows a direct link between hate speeches and murder.

It is known that in a post-conflict society, the public is very sensitive on media reports, especially biased ones. Biased reporting, associated with the hate speech, could lead to violence; the tragic events of March 2004 in Kosova show this undeniable truth. In fact, media coverage seems to have led to massive demonstration of a violent nature involving 50.000 – 60.000 people on 17 March, as compared to the 18.000 who have demonstrated prior to the coverage of this incident in the media.[6] It should also be noted that the media, in particular, RTK as the only public broadcaster, demonstrated intolerable levels of emotion, bias, negligence and falsely applied patriotic fanaticism linked with the hate speech; the public broadcaster promoted ‘patriotism’ instead of professionalism. There is no other way to interpret the words of the presenter of RTK, on Blic News at 23:00, 16 March: “Three Albanian children, Florent, Avni and Egzon are victims of an attack by a group of Serbian paramilitary in the village of Caber”.[7]

It is clear that the broadcasting sector, especially RTK, played the main role during the March events by broadcasting biased reports with full of hate speech. The print media also, with a few exceptions, have failed during their reporting. Most of the news about the children was presented on the front page. The daily Bota Sot had a very firebrand title on March 17; the title was: “Serb gangs have started their activities to expel Albanians from the north”.[8] It was not the first that the daily Bota Sot neglected Regulation 2000/4 on the Prohibition against Inciting to National, Racial or Ethnic Hatred. This daily newspaper was frequently criticized by OSCE and TMC for its inflammatory and prejudicial language.[9] In contrast, there was a newspaper that has displayed more constructive behavior and avoided the hate speech. Editorials and most of the reporting in the daily Koha Ditore helped to decrease tensions.[10]

Obviously, there is no journalist who can be absolutely objective. Journalists, like everyone, carry the values of their home country, their religion and their ethnic group.[11] That is why professional journalists have standards for truthfulness, fairness and responsibility, to eliminate their private values and bias;[12] in other words, to promote reliable journalism.

These principles, more than anywhere else, were neglected in Serbia, by Serbian media; Serbian media can be considered as a supporter of the cultural violence, in particular the hate speech. Since the late 1980s till now, the Serbian media have abandoned these standards and continually promoted the ubiquitous slogan “All Serbs in One State”,[13] which is nothing else except a call for the war against the other nations in ex-Yugoslavia. The Serbian media campaign against the other nations has begun with “The Serbian Cultural Revolution” of 1986 to 1989.[14] From that moment, the Serbian journalists were under political pressure to support the nationalism of the Milosevic’s government; they were also under social pressure to join the patriotic euphoria. Those who resisted, if any, were demoted or dismissed. Serbian media was the greatest propaganda machine of all the times. By using the hate speech and promoting xenophobia, they blamed the others for the problems, difficulties and sufferings that Serbian people ever faced; for these doings, even the Nazi-propaganda chief, Josef Goebels would admire them.

RTS (Radio Television of Serbia) was the most important news medium and held a monopoly on state-wide broadcasting.[15] The party-state of Milosevic kept RTS in an iron grasp. Milosevic, for sure, has never read Marshal McLuhan’s best-selling book The Medium is the Message, or Maxwell McCombs’ handbook The Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media in the Shaping of the Public Opinion. However, he has grasped better than anyone the function of the mass media and of television in particular: he has known that there is nothing except national TV, and that on national TV there is nothing except the 7:30 evening news; it is there that the consensus of public opinion is formed.[16]

The RTS used a very tendentious language and tone while covering the war in Croatia and Bosnia. The emphasis in RTS coverage was on the defensive nature of Serb activity; the Serbs were “fighting for freedom”, protecting their “national soul” from “the Muslims”, who were waging the religious war, and wanted to force Serbs to belong to an Islamic state, and from “the Croats”, who wanted to unite with Croatia, and whose anti-Serb fascism was already known.[17]

The terminology of Serbian journalists to describe their enemies was a very tough one. These journalists have used very controversial terms such as: “evil doers”, “cut throats”, “ustashe”, “mujahedin”, “jihad warriors”, “Muslim extremists”, and so on.[18] Radivoje Gutic, a Serbian journalist, reporting from Herzegovina for RTS, said, “Croatian and Muslim forces want to destroy everything Serbian in these areas. Terror, fanatical hatred, and physical and spiritual genocide against Serbs in Herzegovina are the basis of their political and military effort”.[19]

The RTS had a very interesting way of selecting the studio guests. Program guests are often presented without explaining who they are and who they represent; of course, these guests have to use always the hate speech against the others. On 5 November 1992, a Russian general was given the chance to avow that Russian officers were ready to intervene militarily on the side of their Orthodox brothers against Muslim fundamentalists and Croatian fascists, not mentioning the fact that the general was retired and represented only himself.[20] The way that RTS has operated in Serbia, the way of using the hate speech, as a form of cultural violence, to eliminate the others and manipulate with the Serbian public is unknown in the newest history of the media; it can be considered like the best way to degrade the media’s role.


What do the People of the Media Think?

People of the media have very interesting opinions about these limits of the mass media. “Speaking badly about the other ethnic or cultural group, or shortly, using the hate speech represents the worst way of doing the journalists’ job. Journalists, like everyone, belong to the certain ethnic and cultural group, but above all, they are human beings and should not incite the violence against the others”, says, Mrs. Arta Demaj, the editor in Radio Dukagjini, responsible for news. “On the contrary, good journalism encourages negotiations if there is a conflict between different ethnic groups. Therefore, journalists should always produce the reports which are impartial and balanced”.

The other sort of limitation, which is typical for societies without a tradition of the free press, is censorship. It refers to the control by public authorities of any form of publication or transmission, usually some mechanism of examining all material before publication.[21]

“We have over-passed the traditional form of the censorship, the one realized by the state. At the present, we are facing a new type of this phenomenon; the censorship exercised by media owners”, says Mr. Hivzi Krasniqi, the editor in daily Iliria Post. “The owners are interested to make money or propaganda or both. Consequently, the probability of an event to become news, if it is harmful for the sponsors or investors, is none”.

According to Mr. Krasniqi, the newest kind of censorship is even worst than the older form. “The censorship exercised by the media owners has too many filters”, says he.


The Other Challenges of Reporting

News is a construct: it is a version of reality shaped in significant part by journalistic reports.[22] Although, while doing their job, journalists face a lot of difficulties, they should be very careful, in particular, while reporting live and on deadline.

Deadline reporting, especially if you’re covering mayor breaking news event, creates enormous competitive situations. These stories can make you a famous journalist; but, they can destroy you also. While reporting on deadline journalists should be very careful on few things. Firstly, the most essential standard is the quantity of accurate, timely information they give to the public;[23] the deadline is coming and journalists should gather truthful information as much as they can. Secondly, they should be aware of clearness and reasonableness of their reporting;[24] reporting has to be clear and understandable. Thirdly, the reporting should be characterized by creativity and credible sources;[25] journalists should be resourceful and creative while pursuing the news. So, while reporting on deadline, journalists should maintain the balance in their coverage as they worked to beat the deadline.

As deadline reporting, live reporting can be an interesting and enlightening, but also a very risky activity for the journalists. Live reporting requires us to step back for a moment, take a deep professional breath, collect ourselves and then begin the process of deciding what information our viewers, or listeners need to receive first. Journalists’ live reporting must offer a calm, reasoned and balanced view of the event; otherwise, they will be covered with the veil of un-professionalism.


Conclusion

To conclude, while doing their job, journalists face some limitations which are not incompatible with the freedom of speech; moreover, some of these limits, in particular, limitation of the hate speech, can produce good journalism. In ex-Yugoslavia, the media has shown itself as a double-edged sword. It can be a dreadful weapon of brutality when it transmits messages of fanaticism linked with the hate speech. This type of messages, full of hate speech, broadcasted by the Serbian media, legitimized the belief that genocide was an appropriate self-defense initiative and, hundreds of thousands people were slaughtered in ex-Yugoslavia.

However, there is another aspect of the media. It can be an instrument of peace-building when the information which is presented is reliable and unbiased. It’s the sort of the media that neglects the hate speech; it seeks solutions, since “good journalism is, above all, a constant process of seeking solutions”,[26] and not inciting conflicts.

Notes:

[1] Denis McQuail, Mass Communication Theory, London, SAGE Publication, 2005, Pg. 236.
[2] Cultural violence includes: hate speech; xenophobia; myths and legends of war heroes; religious justification of the war; and gender discrimination. For more information see: Ross Howard, “Conflict Sensitive Journalism”, a handbook.
[3] Agneza Bozic-Roberson, “Words before the War: Milosevic’s Use of the Media Band Rhetoric to Provoke Ethno-political Conflict in Former Yugoslavia”, East European Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4/2004
[4] Jae-Jin Lee, “Hate Speech as a Communicative Phenomenon: Another View on Campus Speech Code Issues”, Communication and the Law, Vol. 19, No. 2/1997
[5] Dina Temple-Raston, “Journalism and Genocide: How Much Freedom Press is Too Much”, American Journalism Review, Vol. 34, No. 5/1999
[6] OSCE Report: The Role of the Media in the March 2004 Events in Kosovo. Pg. 3.
[7] Ibid. Pg. 8.
[8] OSCE Report: The Role of the Media in the March 2004 Events in Kosovo. Pg. 14.
[9] Julie Mertus and Mark Thompson, “The Learning Curve: Media Development in Kosovo”, American Journalism Review, Vol. 24, N0. 8/2002
[10] Ibid. Pg. 3.
[11] Ross Howard, “Conflict Sensitive Journalism”, a handbook, Pg. 19.
[12] Ibid. Pg. 14.
[13] Agneza Bozic-Roberson, “Words before the War: Milosevic’s Use of the Media Band Rhetoric to Provoke Ethno-political Conflict in Former Yugoslavia”, East European Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4/2004
[14] Agneza Bozic-Roberson, “Words before the War: Milosevic’s Use of the Media Band Rhetoric to Provoke Ethno-political Conflict in Former Yugoslavia”, East European Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4/2004
[15] International Centre Against Censorship, The Media in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, Article 19. Pg. 84.
[16] Ibid. Pg. 86.
[17] Agneza Bozic-Roberson, “Words before the War: Milosevic’s Use of the Media Band Rhetoric to Provoke Ethno-political Conflict in Former Yugoslavia”, East European Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4/2004
[18] International Centre Against Censorship, The Media in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, Article 19. Pg. 102.
[19] Ibid. Pg. 103.
[20] Ibid. Pg. 113.
[21] Denis McQuail, Mass Communication Theory, London, SAGE Publication, 2005, Pg. 549.
[22] Thomas E. Patterson, “Political Roles of the Media”, American Journalism Review, Vol. 49, N0. 9/2003
[23] Ferrell Wellman, “Standards under Pressure”, American Journalism Review, Vol. 32, N0. 4/2003
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ross Howard thinks that “Good Journalism is a Process of Seeking Solutions”. For more information see: Ross Howard, “Conflict Sensitive Journalism”, a handbook, Pg. 9.

Bibliography

McQuail, Denis. Mass Communication Theory, London: SAGE Publication, 2005.
Bozic-Roberson, Agneza. “Words before the War: Milosevic’s Use of the Media Band Rhetoric to Provoke Ethno-political Conflict in Former Yugoslavia”, East European Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4/2004
Lee, Jae-Jin. “Hate Speech as a Communicative Phenomenon: Another View on Campus Speech Code Issues”, Communication and the Law, Vol. 19, No. 2/1997
Temple-Raston, Dina. “Journalism and Genocide: How Much Freedom Press is Too Much”, American Journalism Review, Vol. 34, No. 5/1999
OSCE Report: The Role of the Media in the March 2004 Events in Kosovo
Mertus, Julie & Mark Thompson. “The Learning Curve: Media Development in Kosovo”, American Journalism Review, Vol. 24, N0. 8/2002
International Centre Against Censorship. “The Media in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina”, Article 19
Patterson, Thomas E. “Political Roles of the Media”, American Journalism Review, Vol. 49, N0. 9/2003
Howard, Ross. “Conflict Sensitive Journalism”, a handbook Wellman, Ferrell. “Standards under Pressure”, American Journalism Review, Vol. 32, N0. 4/2003