Taken together, our findings provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the criteria journalists use to decide whether to publish a story, particularly when their democratic role conflicts with traditional notions of news values that underpin gatekeeping theory. /6 end.

+ Yet, the decision to publish tends to prevail even if a majority of journalists see potential harm. Private interests—political or financial—overcome the public interest.

+ Some bet on mitigating measures (e.g., additional context or corrections) and open the door for rationalisation. /5

Reasons to publish:
👉 “Competing voices”
👉 Legitimacy of position (e.g. president)
👉 Accountability of an actor
👉 Fear of looking left-leaning
👉 Audience pressure

Not to publish:
🚫 Potential harm to democracy
🚫 Journalism’s social and democratic role
🚫 Ethical standards (esp on hate speech) /4

First, Journalists do hold clear and consistent views on what constitutes “problematic content”. Two types stand out: content that they believe 'will undermine democratic attitudes' (or authoritarian proposals) and misinformation about 'relevant issues' (e.g., COVID-19 and climate change). /3

Journalists often face a dilemma about whether to publish content that could undermine public deliberation and democratic norms. But what do they perceive as harmful, and how do they make such decisions? We ran 36 in-depth interviews with journalists in Brazil’s biggest newsrooms to find out: 👇/2

You are also warmly invited to my presentation tomorrow, Friday 13 June: “Breaking the News: Journalists’ Perceptions and Decision-Making on ‘Problematic Content’ and Public Harm” (with Jean-François Daoust)
🕒 3:00 PM – 4:15 PM
📍 Colorado A (Grand 2)

More morally abhorrent and politically counterproductive speech from Starmer.

1. It propagates a nativist narrative by blaming immigration/immigrants for the UK’s economic and social ills.

2. It thereby also whitewashes Tories for years of destructive economic and social policies.