Newsworthy actors, illegitimate voices: Journalistic strategies in dealing with voices deemed anti-democratic and violent

Abstract

In recent years, violent extremism has been high on the global public agenda, invoking normative questions about the limits of free speech and how liberal democracies should deal with actors who promote views deemed anti-democratic and violent. Based on in-depth interviews with Norwegian newsroom professionals and content analysis of news from major Norwegian news outlets (n = 1819), this article explores how newsrooms deal with an important dilemma in reporting extremism: how to fulfill their democratic roles of informing the public of forces deemed anti-democratic and violent, while refraining from legitimizing and advancing extremist ideas and aims. The analysis shows that newsroom staff perceive these dilemmas as inherently challenging, with few clear-cut solutions as to how to strike a balance between inclusion and exclusion, ‘neutrality’ and condemnation, and these assessments are further complicated in the digital media environment, raising new dilemmas and questions concerning journalistic roles and responsibilities. In practice, editorial dilemmas are dealt with by making a distinction between newsworthy actors and legitimate voices. Reporters foregrounded several reasons why voices deemed extremist should be included in the news. Yet, analysis of news content showed that these voices tended to be included in short and de-contextualized bits that served to fulfill some stated journalistic aims, such as warning national audiences, while largely neglecting others, such as providing understanding of the motives and ideas of actors deemed extremist, with important implications for news construction of extremism. Theoretically, the article contributes to the literature on news access, limits of mediated debate, and construction of deviance in the news.