“Not everything is allowed”:
what do citizenship in Madrid think about opinion in media and freedom of expression
Susana Herrera Damas, Ph. D.Carlos Maciá Barber, Ph. D.
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Spain) ECREA, Hamburg, October 12−15th 2010
Summary:
• Introduction • Methodology• Results• Conclusions
Introduction
• Aim: to describe the perceptions of citizens at the Madrid Region regarding opinion in media and freedom of expression
• What do ethical codes say? – To avoid the spreading of messages that incite violence– To reduce the presence of issues that may be
distasteful– To avoid views that promote racism, intolerance or
xenophobia– To respect and encourage human rights
Methodology
This paper is part of a larger research project finished last March
3 goals: a) To take an inventory of the standards that make up
the doctrine of the ethical practice of journalismb) To contrast said norms with the prevailing values
interiorized by media professionalsc) To determine to which extent the norms and the
prevailing value system are shared by the citizenry in Madrid (7 focus groups and 407 phone surveys)
Methodology: the question in the survey
"Should an opinion be published even though: a) it opposes the Constitution? b) it violates human rights? c) it includes nazi ideas?d) it justifies the use of violence?e) it is racist or xenophobic?f) it is disrespectful towards any religion? g) it is disrespectful towards Catholic religion?h) it defends any terrorist organization? i) it is sexist?j) it is considered in bad taste?"
Methodology: the questions in focus groups
"Do you think media should use a neutral language, or should they be specifically against terrorist groups?“
"How far should journalists go when respecting religious beliefs on a story?"
"Do you think there are some things that should not published for being considered in ‘bad taste’?" And more specific ones regarding these issues
Results of the survey: citizens
It is against Constitution
It is against human rights
it include nazis ideas
it promotes the use of violence
it is racist or xenophobic
it is disrespectful to any religion
it is disrespectful to Catholic religion
it supports a terrorist organization
it is sexist
it is considered in bad taste
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
41.3
21.6
22.3
20.5
23.0
29.0
32.3
23.6
29.7
33.8
56.1
76.3
75.9
78.3
76.0
68.9
65.2
75.0
67.4
61.1
2.6
2.2
1.8
1.2
1.0
2.1
2.4
1.4
3.0
5.1Yes No DK
Results of the survey: journalists vs citizens:yes, the opinion should be media no matter
Journalists Citizens Percentage difference
…it is disrespectful to any religion
83.4% 29% 54.4%
…it is disrespectful to Catholic religion
82.2% 32.3% 49.9%
…it is sexist 64.5% 29.7% 34.8%
…it is against the Constitution
75.1% 41.3% 33.8%
…it is considered in bad taste
67% 33.8% 33.2%
Results of the focus groups: regarding terrorism
Regarding terrorism
– citizens are also more critical than journalists– still, participants are divided between the need for
media to report objectively, and the feeling that media offer too much impact about their activities
– for young people, journalists should abandon their objectivity when referring to this issue
– adults point out that the Government should provide some guidelines that should be followed by every media
Regarding religious beliefs
Regarding religious beliefs
– citizens are in favor of respecting all creeds and not to offend sensibilities
– however, • tolerance should not be a pretext to censor information• and religious institutions should be given the same status as
any other public institution– young people do not care much about this issue – for most adults and older people, religious beliefs
involve a special treatment– they also point out to differences when media speak
about different religion
Regarding bad taste
Regarding bad taste
– citizens openly reject the spreading of such content– they agree that is commonly used by media to feed the morbid
curiosity – citizens would rather protect children from bad taste,
profanity, violent images, satires and coarse language– young people also disagree with the publication of dead
people or intimate moments – only exception: “social learning”– however, compared to professionals, the differences were less
significant– both citizens and professional point out to common sense and
the morals of each professional as the best limit
Conclusions
1. Citizens were twice as critical as journalists with the possibility of media including opinions that: a) violate human rights, b) express racist ideas, d) encourage the use of violence, e) or support terrorists organization
Citizens are even more critical than professionals: a) in religious matter, b) if the views are sexist, c) if they are against the Constitution or d) are considered in bad taste
Here the differences are between 30 and 50 points.
Conclusions
2. Significant variables when it comes to
understand the different perceptions: a) age b) professional status c) preference in media consumption d) ideological position
Conclusions
3. Although young people tend to be more permissive with the spreading of controversial material, they show themselves very critical with sexist or Nazis ideas, or with those that promote the violence
Conclusions
4. The most critical with insulting opinions were: a) employees with non manual work, b) housewives and c) retired people
Conclusions
5. People that prefer Internet and newspapers users are more flexible to some views. Those who prefer radio and television are more reluctant to include such opinions
Conclusions
6. Finally, people who considered themselves progressives seem more willing to accept speeches supporting terrorist organizations. Conservatives tend to be more lax with the use of violence.
The end
[email protected]@susanaherrera (twitter)
Academia.edu/SusanaHerrera
Thank you very much for your attention