To Report or Not to Report? A Qualitative Analysis of Journalists' Perspectives on Harm to Public Opinion.

Abstract

Journalists face intricate decisions regarding what to publish, especially when problematic content may impact public opinion in a way that could fuel hate and/or undermine democratic attitudes. While scholarship has recognized the importance of this issue, most studies focus on published content, how citizens engage with it, and the implications of published news. In this article, we provide a fresh perspective on the crucial dilemma faced by journalists concerning their perceived impact on public opinion, by leveraging data based on 36 semistructured in-depth interviews with journalists covering Brazil's political landscape. The interviews were conducted between December 7, 2021, and July 20, 2022. Our main findings are threefold. First, we find a consensus among journalists regarding what is seen as problematic content, which is centered around threats to democratic attitudes and misinformation on critical issues. Second, we examine the rationales underpinning journalists' choices to publish problematic content, which include the concept of "competing voices," the legitimacy conferred to elected representatives (e.g., the head of a government), and journalists' fear of being viewed as left leaning and losing their audience. Third, we find that journalists who do not publish problematic content do so because they expect to negatively impact public opinion, in particular democratic attitudes, and that their reporting of hate speech may not meet ethical standards. We conclude by highlighting the complex interplay of journalistic norms and expectations regarding their impact on public opinion and the news production process.