Is receiving threats a sign of validation for a journalist? I’ve wondered about this for some time now. If we breakdown the core function of a journalist, they are people that investigate a topic and compile information they have gathered to share news-worthy content to the public. This is different to the role of a reporter in that they speak about singular events by recounting specific occurrences. So while a reporter should be impartial by design, a journalist should have bias: their own opinion.
I think it’s a good to have strong opinions. I find people who are unopinionated to be bland. Most people would agree and as a result do not identify with or engage with people who lack opinions. This applies to the field of journalism. A journalist without strong or divisive opinions would most likely not get to a position where a lot of people would interact with the content they produce. As more people interact with a journalist's content, there will inevitably be people who don’t agree with what is being written to the point where the journalist is seen as a threat to someone’s core values and beliefs.
When I think of Journalists being under threat, my mind goes abroad. For me, instances similar to what happened to Jamal Khashoggi seem extremely distant. Unfortunately, government regimes in some countries have established a system where they have the authority or power to suppress their opposition and the platforms that support it. Hence, government sanctioned censorship of journalists is commonplace around the world.
Is the only way for a journalist to publish opinionated content without fear of backlash by having full anonymity? Imagine there was a way for journalists to have their credentials verified by a publication, but maintain their identity completely secret. Some publications, like the Economist, already keep their authors anonymous. What if there was an open source platform that enabled all journalists to keep an anonymous profile, especially online, so that individuals and governments could access their content, but not information that would lead to the enacting of actionable threats.
I think that receiving threats is a sign of validation for a journalist, but threats should not be allowed to lead to harm. I think there needs to be more technology developed to ensure the safety of journalists along side advances in online distribution capabilities.
I totally agree. I recommended this in another comment, but you should watch A Private War. Marie Colvin is constantly threatened, but she understands that it comes with the territory (in this film) and really uses that to highlight the issues she cares about. I do think that we really need to protect journalists and advocate for press immunity in conflict zones, something that isn’t always guaranteed.
This vlog was a interesting vlog. I also believe it's important to have your own opinion about topics because there's nothing wrong in believing what you believe. People are sometimes scared to say what they believe, and it holds them back.
This post covers a lot of topics, such as the profitability of divisiveness and the online ease of targeting individuals. I have also thought about this in an artistic context as artists often have provocative or controversial edges to their work, which can lead to threats similar to the threats made on journalists. Is this also a sign of validation? I think I come to a boring sort of middle-place... it is easy to do or say shocking things, or things one already knows will cause a negative reaction. I think that, since divisiveness is profitable and some people are willing to have a controversial reputation or endure threats, some shocking work (whether journalistic or artistic) could come from an…
Journalists definitely are at their best when challenging others bias or worldview, and this absolutely gains them notoriety and fame. Threats are a definite sign of success in a way, but when they actually become dangerous there must be something done to stop them. Free press allows for a variety of opinions, and I believe there is always a place for anonymity in publications, but I see many journalists wanting to keep their name on things in order to further build their audience.
I completely agree that there should be greater advances not just in technology, but also in publications' resolve to fund and create these technologies, to ensure a journalist's safety and wellbeing. That being said, I think more so than the journalists, publications gain a lot of validity when they have controversial journalists (I'm thinking particularly about publications who employ journalists that criticize authoritarian governments), and therefore have more to gain (popularity, more viewership particularly when a journalist is attacked or targeted) by not always protecting the anonymity of controversial journalists.