The Strategic Bias: How Journalists Respond to Antimedia Populism

Ayala Panievsky

doi:10.1177/19401612211022656

Abstract

As populist campaigns against the media become increasingly common around the world, it is ever more urgent to explore how journalists adopt and respond to them. Which strategies have journalists developed to maintain the public's trust, and what may be the implications for democracy? These questions are addressed using a thematic analysis of forty-five semistructured interviews with leading Israeli journalists who have been publicly targeted by Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The article suggests that while most interviewees asserted that adherence to objective reporting was the best response to antimedia populism, many of them have in fact applied a “strategic bias” to their reporting, intentionally leaning to the Right in an attempt to refute the accusations of media bias to the Left. This strategy was shaped by interviewees' perceived helplessness versus Israel's Prime Minister and his extensive use of social media, a phenomenon called here “the influence of presumed media impotence.” Finally, this article points at the potential ramifications of strategic bias for journalism and democracy. Drawing on Hallin's Spheres theory, it claims that the strategic bias might advance Right-wing populism at present, while also narrowing the sphere of legitimate controversy—thus further restricting press freedom—in the future.

Highlights

Public attacks on the news media have become a dominant feature of the current wave of populist politicians, parties, and movements (Egelhofer and Lecheler 2019; Farhall et al 2019; Van Dalen 2019)
It does so by uncovering a particular coping strategy that has been repeatedly mentioned in interviews with dozens of Israeli journalists who were publicly attacked by Israel’s Prime Minister (PM)
How do journalists respond to antimedia populism? Which coping strategies do they apply to counter populist allegations and maintain the public’s trust? And what may be the implications? This study addresses these questions through a thematic analysis of forty-five semistructured interviews with Israeli journalists who work for leading national news outlets and have been publicly scrutinized by PM Netanyahu

Summary

Introduction

Public attacks on the news media have become a dominant feature of the current wave of populist politicians, parties, and movements (Egelhofer and Lecheler 2019; Farhall et al 2019; Van Dalen 2019). In Europe, the United States, Latin America, the Middle East and beyond, journalists have become accustomed to accusations of bias by populists and their supporters, epitomized by derogatory labels like “fake news” and “enemies of the people.” Research suggests that such rhetoric can polarize and diminish the public’s trust in the news media (Pingree et al 2018; Smith 2010; Van Duyn and Collier 2018; Watts et al 1999). This article, sheds light on another potential implication of the populist campaign: the chilling effect that risks compromising journalists’ work and their ability to fulfill their role within democracy It does so by uncovering a particular coping strategy that has been repeatedly mentioned in interviews with dozens of Israeli journalists who were publicly attacked by Israel’s Prime Minister (PM).

Methods

Results

Conclusion