{"id":18187,"date":"2021-01-21T20:46:35","date_gmt":"2021-01-21T20:46:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/asiapacificreport.nz\/?p=54018"},"modified":"2021-01-21T20:46:35","modified_gmt":"2021-01-21T20:46:35","slug":"to-publish-or-not-to-publish-the-medias-free-speech-dilemmas-in-a-world-of-division-violence-and-extremism-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/01\/21\/to-publish-or-not-to-publish-the-medias-free-speech-dilemmas-in-a-world-of-division-violence-and-extremism-2\/","title":{"rendered":"To publish or not to publish? The media\u2019s free-speech dilemmas in a world of division, violence and extremism"},"content":{"rendered":"
ANALYSIS:<\/strong> By Denis Muller<\/a>, University of Melbourne<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n Terrorism, political extremism, Donald Trump, social media and the phenomenon of \u201ccancel culture\u201d are confronting journalists with a range of agonising free-speech dilemmas to which there are no easy answers.<\/p>\n Do they allow a president of the United States to use their platforms to falsely and provocatively claim the election he has just lost was stolen from him?<\/p>\n How do they cover the activities and rhetoric of political extremists without giving oxygen to race hate and civil insurrection?<\/p>\n How do they integrate news-making social media material into their own content, when it is also hateful or a threat to the civil peace?<\/p>\n Should journalists engage in, or take a stand against, \u201ccancel culture<\/a>\u201d?<\/p>\n How should editors respond to the \u201cassassin\u2019s veto<\/a>\u201d, when extremists threaten to kill those who publish content that offends their culture or religion?<\/p>\n The West has experienced concrete examples of all these in recent years. In the US, many of them became pressing during the Trump presidency.<\/p>\n Lying and endangering civil peace<\/strong> Silencing the president was an extraordinary step, since it is the job of the media to tell people what is going on, hold public officials to account, and uphold the right to free speech. It looked like an abandonment of their role in democratic life.<\/p>\n Against that, television\u2019s acknowledged reach and power imposes a heavy duty not to provide a platform for dangerous speech.<\/p>\n\n
\nWhen five of the big US television networks cut away from former President Trump\u2019s White House press conference<\/a> on November 6 after he claimed the election had been stolen, they did so on the grounds that he was lying and endangering civil peace.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n