Hate-Speech in Greece and Cyprus: How Public Communication Practitioners Discuss the Phenomenon

ABSTRACT

(Online) hate speech appears as a growing problem in Greece and Cyprus attributed to prejudices toward specific groups, the evolution of online media, lack of awareness and of appropriate educational tools to recognize and counter it. Communication professionals and media practitioners produce hate speech content both intentionally, to gain visibility and unintentionally due to their inability to recognize it. This paper presents a study conducted simultaneously for the first time in Greece and Cyprus that explored the issue of (online) hate speech, approaching it in a socio-centric rationale as hate discourse. The issue was researched through a qualitative inquiry with semi-structured interviews and focus groups conducted in Greece and Cyprus. According to the personal and professional perceptions of the public communication experts who participated in our research, hate speech impacts predominantly vulnerable social groups, and the deficiency in legal frameworks in both countries enables rather than combats this pathogenesis. This paper contributes toward a better understanding of hate speech in the two countries and how public communication practitioners perceive and experience it.

KEYWORDS:

• Hate speech
• hate discourse
• journalists
• journalism students
• citizen journalists
• framework analysis

Introduction

Hate speech represents a prevalent phenomenon with profound ramifications for individuals, communities, and the broader fabric of democratic societies. The contemporary socio-political and technological milieu has engendered an environment conducive to its proliferation, thereby exacerbating the challenges associated with its mitigation. Factors such as digitization, societal fragmentation, polarization, global migration patterns, and prevailing political landscapes collectively contribute to the intricate tapestry within which hate speech operates.

The emergence of online hate speech constitutes an escalating concern within the contexts of Greece and Cyprus. The advancement of digital media platforms has significantly facilitated its dissemination. Both professional journalists and citizen contributors generate content containing hate speech, whether deliberately for heightened visibility or inadvertently due to a lack of discernment in identifying its manifestations.

Greece and Cyprus, following the EU directions, have established a legal framework against the public articulation of “direct” hate discourse used to incite violence against its victims. The rationale behind our focus on Greece and Cyprus lies on the fact that online hate discourse is a growing problem in both countries, which can be attributed to societal attitudes toward specific groups, and the lack of awareness and of appropriate tools to recognize and counter hate discourse. Professional and citizen journalists are producing content containing hate discourse both intentionally, to gain visibility, and unintentionally because they are not in a position to effectively recognize it (Poulakidakos 2024). More specifically, both Greece and Cyprus are above EU average when it comes to xenophobic attitudes. In Greece, for example, racism and xenophobia are on the rise (Eurobarometer 419 & Racist Violence Recording Network report 2019), a condition confirmed by the last general election results (of June 25, 2023), when three openly far-right parties (Spartans, Greek Solution, Victory) managed to elect MPs in the Greek Parliament, on top of the triumph of the conservative and quasi far-right government of New Democracy (ypes.gr 2023), which systematically implements (lethal) pushbacks against immigrants/asylum seekers in the Aegean sea (Rankin and O’ Caroll 2023). At the same time, stereotypes around sexual orientation and gender identity are still prevalent in both countries (Eurobarometer 437), creating a fertile ground for hate discourse directed at the LGBTQI + community and women.

This paper aims to present the findings of our study conducted concurrently in Greece and Cyprus, examining the phenomenon of (online) hate speech from a socio-centric perspective, conceptualizing it as hate discourse. Employing a qualitative approach, the research utilized semi-structured interviews and focus groups to investigate the issue within the respective contexts of Greece and Cyprus. It has tried to explore how media practitioners in Greece and Cyprus understand, experience, and attempt to tackle the phenomenon of (online) hate discourse speech. Analysis of data gathered from public communication experts revealed that hate speech disproportionately affects marginalized social groups, with inadequacies in legal frameworks in both nations exacerbating rather than mitigating its proliferation. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the advancement of knowledge on hate speech within the Greek and Cypriot contexts, offering insights into the perceptions and experiences of public communication practitioners.

Defining Hate Speech

Social discrimination is a widely studied topic in media and journalism studies, which explores the importance of language in establishing, maintaining, resisting, and changing social power relations, mainly through the ideological functions of political and media discourse (Blommaert and Bulcaen 2000). Stereotypes and prejudices are spread through public/media discourse within any given society in the form of narratives. A narrative is a rational -or at least allegedly rational- and internally coherent interpretation of interconnected events disseminated as a message that makes sense to the receiver (Del Felice et al. 2017, 9). When a narrative is presented as the only correct one, rejecting alternative narratives or, in extreme cases, inciting violence against those who question it, in other words, taking the form of “hate speech”, the fundamental principles of a pluralistic society are at stake (Del Felice et al. 2017, 9). Hate speech can initially be defined as “a particularly harmful discourse contributing to the formation of a climate of hatred and violence, especially toward marginalized and weaker social groups, violating the fundamental dignity of its victims” (Gelber 2002, 1).

In everyday life, “hate speech” has become an umbrella term with multiple meanings that covers a heterogeneous collection of communication aspects (Brown 2020, 47). At the same time, as we are constantly confronted with discreet and divisive attitudes and actions in our society, the word “hate” appears more and more often in public (political) discourse, in order to serve ideological and political scopes (Udupa and Pohjonen 2019; Udupa, Gagliardone, and Hervik 2021). The strong socio-political causes behind the articulation of hate speech are best illustrated in the approach describing hate speech as a “manifestation of unequal social and power relations and, at the same time, a mechanism for their reproduction” (Del Felice et al. 2017, 30).

Hate speech primarily targets social groups whose position in society is considered inferior to other groups (Waldron 2012, 27; Charitidis et al. 2020), and/or whose ideas and behavior collide with the predominant system of social rules and values (Del Felice et al. 2017, 33), (re)producing and disseminating an extreme form of exclusionary discourse that can be used in a wide variety of social and political instances (Udupa and Pohjonen 2019; Udupa, Gagliardone, and Hervik 2021). Hate speech, therefore, is not a separate characteristic of a particular social group; it arises in the context of specific social (power) relations, occurs when social norms and privileges are challenged and can be expressed “directly” or covertly. In order to deal with hate speech effectively, it is important to perceive it as a violation of human rights and as a social phenomenon with profound (social) causes (Del Felice et al. 2017, 36). Hate speech is, therefore, a form of expression that creates and perpetuates a framework of discrimination (Gelber 2002, 69) and exclusion.

As follows, hate speech aims to degrade the dignity of those it targets, primarily in the eyes of members of society. It aims to tarnish their reputation by linking identity characteristics such as nationality, race, gender, social class, and religion with behavioral traits that should exclude one from being treated as an equal member of society (Waldron 2012, 5; Sobieraj 2019). In this context of social, political and economic inequality that acts as fertile ground for the articulation of hate speech, the perpetrator experiences the illusion of superiority. (S)he feels its identity is superior to that of victims, who become scapegoats.

From what has been mentioned so far regarding hate speech, it should be understood that it constitutes a way of imposing and perpetuating social inequalities through -any- means of communication (speech, writing, images, etc.) (Sponholz and Christofoletti 2019, 68). For this reason, it can be addressed as a (public) communication issue (Sponholz and Christofoletti 2019, 69) and not just a linguistic matter, since communication means exchanging, understanding, interacting, while language is merely the prevalent system of symbols used for private and public communication (Sponholz and Christofoletti 2019, 68). Given its inherently public nature, hate speech is being discussed in the relevant literature in relation to publicity professions, such as journalists, press officers and other public communication related activities, pinpointing the perceptions and difficulties that public communication professionals face when dealing with hate speech, as potential perpetrators (Ibrahim 2019; Johnson, Thomas, and Kelling 2020), victims (Charitidis et al. 2020) and (unwilling) “disseminators” of hate discourse in occasions they cannot avoid reporting it, e.g., when it is articulated by politicians and people in power (Vobič, Erjavec, and Kovačič 2013).

Even though there is relevant literature (Udupa and Pohjonen 2019; Udupa, Gagliardone, and Hervik 2021) characterizing hate speech as a “congested” term with too much cultural, political, legal, and historical “baggage” that prevents it from functioning as a useful analytic term, and proposing instead the term “extreme speech”, we opt for the word “hate”, since it is this exact feeling that is being articulated through the relevant discourse. Besides, “extreme” is merely an exaggeration without having a positive or negative connotation.

In addition, given the inherently socio-political nature of hate speech, and the plurality of communication forms through which it can be articulated (speech, image/video, symbols etc.), we opt for the term “discourse” over “speech”.¹ In this rationale, hate discourse has been defined as “an expression that conveys views of hatred or discrimination against specific individuals or groups” (Strossen 2018, 1). The Council of Europe refers to a term “used to describe broad discourse that is extremely negative and constitutes a threat to social peace”. Hate discourse covers all forms of expression (speech, writing, images, videos, or any other form of communication online, or offline) (Waldron 2012, 5) that spread, incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, antisemitism, or other forms of intolerance-based hate, including intolerance expressed through aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, as well as discrimination and hostility against minorities and immigrants (Antigone 2019:2; Del Felice et al. 2017, 8; 27)..

Apart from the socio-centric approach to hate discourse, we have to bear in mind the various legal approaches to the phenomenon, which constitute a complicated ecology of laws, varying from one country to another, as they try to balance the delegitimization of hate discourse against constitutional commitments to free expression. In various legal systems there is a divergence in approaches to hate discourse, notably between the US and other Western nations (Poulakidakos and Papathanassopoulos 2021).

Our research explored how public communication practitioners in Greece and Cyprus (journalism students, young journalists, citizen journalists, NGOs communication officers) define/understand, experience, and attempt to tackle the phenomenon of (online) hate discourse, based on their personal and professional experience. The rationale behind choosing communication practitioners and students for our research lies on the fact that these people (will) act as opinion leaders/makers, concentrating symbolic (communication) power in their hands, and, thus, (will) act as moderators in discussions that are (or will be) taking place in the public sphere for any (controversial) issue of public interest. On top of that, since our research has been conducted under the SoPHiSM project (sophism.eu 2020), we focused on young and perspective media professionals as well, in order to raise awareness among them regarding hate discourse and to incite a rationale of respect to fundamental human rights, seeking to contribute to the creation of informed and socially sensitive (future) communication practitioners.

Research Methodology

This research aimed at mapping the perceptions and experiences of hate discourse of (perspective) public communication practitioners in Greece and Cyprus. The opinions of experts on the most important aspects of hate discourse, namely the causes and consequences, the perpetrators of (online) hate discourse and their recommendations for countering hate discourse, along with the limitations of such an effort increase our understanding of the phenomenon and thus propose different methods for tackling the phenomenon. The research also strived to produce evidence-based knowledge for communication practitioners of the different aspects of the phenomenon and the ways in which vulnerable social groups are affected.

Data Collection Methods

The research activities that took place in Greece and Cyprus included: (a) the conduction of one focus group in each country with public communication practitioners (to be), including young journalists, journalism students and citizen journalists (Web and social media editors and social media influencers- marked as FG1 in the findings’ analysis), (b) one focus group discussion in each country with NGOs communication officers working with vulnerable groups of the population (e.g., migrants, LGBTQ, women, elderly etc.) (marked as FG2 in the findings’ analysis), (c) semi-structured in-depth interviews with journalism students (ten students, five from each country, marked as STU in the analysis), young journalists (ten young journalists, five from each country, marked as YJ in the analysis) and citizen journalists (ten citizen journalists, five from each country, marked as CIT in the analysis). In total, four focus groups (two in Cyprus and two in Greece) and 30 interviews (15 in each country) took place, during July 2020. Research participants were of Greek and Greek Cypriot nationality and one female Turkish Cypriot journalist while their age varied between 19 years of age to 60. Gender representation among participants was also achieved in both countries. Table 1 outlines the research participants’ composition.

Table 1. Research participants.

Greece	Gender
Citizen journalists (5)	Female (4) Male (1)
Young Journalists (5)	Female (3) Male (2)
Students (5)	Female (3) Male (2)
Focus Group 1 (11) Journalists	Female (6) Male (5)
Focus Group 2 (7) NGOs	Female (5) Male (2)
Cyprus	Gender
Citizen journalists (5)	Female (2) Male (3)
Young Journalists (5)	Female (3) Male (2)
Students (5)	Female (4) Male (1)
Focus Group 1 (12) Journalists	Female (5) Male (7)
Focus Group 2 (15) NGOs	Female (12) Male (3)

The abovementioned procedure reflects the method of purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling was used for the identification and selection of information-rich cases of participants and for the most effective use of limited resources since there were time and resource constraints (Patton 2002). This sampling method was selected because it was essential to identify especially knowledgeable about or experienced with hate discourse in each country. The research participants were approached through a general call posted in journalist associations’ websites in Greece and Cyprus, as well as in the announcements of the major communication and media University departments in Greece and Cyprus, namely the Communication and Media Studies Department of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and the Department of Communications of the University of Nicosia. The NGO’s communication officers were contacted directly and asked to participate in our research, due to their professional experience in the advocacy of human rights. All participants were engaged in our research on an entirely voluntary basis. On average the interviews we conducted lasted fifty minutes, while focus groups approximately one hour and twenty minutes.

Focus groups are particularly beneficial “if interactive phenomena such as communication, including teaching or learning interactions, are the focus of the study” (Hayes 2001:89). It is selected as the most preferred research strategy as it promotes the interaction among involved participants and brings them together to thoroughly discuss the area under research (Quintanilha et al. 2015). It is also considered as an enabler tool when different groups of participants need to be questioned about defining ideas and attitudes concerning societal conditions (Lavrakas 2008). The specific method offered access to personal attitudes, experiences, and perceptions of the research population. Kitzinger (1995) contended that focus groups are effective to examine what people think, how they think, why they think in specific ways and their understandings and priorities in a given subject. It is those advantages that have guided the decision to adopt this strategy, as it brings the researcher closer to the subject under study through a direct and personal encounter with key individuals (Lane, McKenna H Ryan, and Fleming 2001).

In addition to the focus groups, in-depth interviews were conducted as well. A qualitative interviewing approach (Bryman 2012) is considered better for a deeper understanding of the current conditions and collect analytical information. The interviews served our main aim which has been to better understand the phenomenon based on individuals’ perceptions and understanding as they are part of the context where online hate speech takes place (Bryman 2012). Qualitative interviewing is the most widely used method to identify research participants’ experiences, needs and perceptions. In this case, interviews were conducted within a fairly open framework with free two-way communication (Flick 2002; Sarantakos 2012; Silverman 2001; Wengraf 2001). That meant that interview questions were not highly structured, but they prompted the interviewees to discuss in detail their perceptions without offering to them specific definitions of the phenomenon under study and thus avoiding any kind of bias. Participants allowed audio recording for transcription and dissemination of information by signing an informed consent form, after any identifiable information was removed or anonymized. No personal information was collected, and interview data was transcribed verbatim by the interviewers.

Data Analysis Methodology

In terms of data analysis, the framework approach was chosen as it was considered more suitable for cross sectional descriptive data enabling different aspects of the phenomena under investigation to be captured (Ritchie and Lewis 2003). Framework analysis is a fundamentally comparative type of thematic analysis which utilizes a systematic structure of inductively- and deductively developed topics (i.e., a framework) to perform cross-sectional analysis using a blend of data types and notions (Goldsmith 2021). The overall objective of framework analysis is to identify, describe, and interpret key patterns within and across cases of and themes within the phenomenon of interest. It also keeps researchers’ interpretations of participants’ experiences clear and unbiased (Ritchie and Lewis 2003). The data analysis required extensive, reflexive and critical dialogue about how the ideas expressed by interviewees and identified in the transcript were related to pre-existing concepts and theories from each discipline, and to the real issues in the public discourse that the paper is addressing (Gale et al. 2013).

Framework analysis consisted of two major components: creating an analytic framework and applying this analytic framework. These two major components occurred through five steps: (1) data familiarization; (2) identifying a thematic framework; (3) indexing all study data against the framework; (4) charting to summarize the indexed data; and (5) mapping and interpretation of patterns found within the charts (Ritchie and Spencer 1994). The aim of the analysis was to immerse in the details and get a sense of the gathered data before breaking it into parts. The next stage involved the identification of thematic framework, by writing memos in the margin of the text in the form of short phrases, ideas or concepts arising from the texts and beginning to develop categories. At this stage descriptive statements were formed, and an analysis was carried out on the data under the questioning route. The third stage, indexing, comprised of shifting the data, highlighting, and sorting out quotes and making comparisons both within and between cases. The fourth stage, charting, involved lifting the quotes from their original context and re-arranging them under the newly developed.

The data analysis began with the first stage that of familiarization which refers to the process during which the researcher becomes familiarized with the transcripts of the data collected (i.e., focus group transcripts) and gains an indication of the collected data (Ritchie and Spencer 1994). In other words, the researcher first becomes occupied with the data by listening to recordings and reading the transcripts. Throughout this process the researcher has become aware of key ideas and recurrent themes or patterns and has made a note of them. The construction of a thematic framework, the second stage, has occurred after familiarization with the emerging themes or issues in the data set. These emerging themes or issues have been elaborated in order to create the themes. The key issues, concepts and themes that have been articulated by the participants have formed the basis of a thematic framework that has been used to filter and categorize the data (Ritchie and Spencer 1994). The final stage, mapping and interpretation, involves the analysis of the key characteristics as laid out in the charts. This analysis has provided a schematic diagram of the event/phenomenon thus guiding the researchers in their interpretation of the data set. It is at this point that the researchers are aware of the objectives of the analysis, which are: “defining concepts, mapping range and nature of phenomena, creating typologies, finding associations, providing explanations, and developing strategies” (Ritchie and Spencer 1994, 186). This analytical phase included consideration of all the materials developed through the research activity of data collection. The purpose has been to ensure that all the substantive themes and issues have been included and also to avoid the researchers’ personal perceptions or experiences to emerge. This has facilitated the construction of a comprehensive picture of what occurred and has provided a greater opportunity to justify findings.

For the scope of this research, several key themes that functioned as major pillars for the analysis of our findings were identified. Those themes were the personal perceptions/experiences on hate discourse and the harm it causes at a personal and social level, the context/actors and consequences of online hate speech, and limitations and recommendations in countering hate speech, especially in the fields of journalism and public communication.

Research Findings

Personal Perceptions on Hate Discourse² and the Harm it Causes at a Personal and Social Level

In terms of the personal experiences/perceptions of hate discourse, some participants have experienced hate discourse themselves (e.g., an interviewee has been a victim of hate discourse in a patriarchal rationale, since the perpetrator sought to degrade her capabilities as a female journalist). Other participants have witnessed hate discourse online as well, mostly in the form of comments under articles or social media posts. As most participants have noted, on the internet, one can find hate discourse examples on a daily basis; for example, comments under an article according to which a famous athlete talked openly about being homosexual. When the interviewee (STU) intervened writing a supportive comment for the athlete, they were targeted by the hate speakers. This situation appears to be a quite frequent phenomenon in social media and the comments under the news articles concerning refugees/immigrants and other “marginal” social groups (an interviewee has witnessed the exercise of hate speech between immigrants as well- Albanians against Pakistanis) (STU). In addition, an interviewee- frequent Twitter user has noted that approximately “three out of ten tweets include hate speech” (ΥJ). Additionally hate discourse was defined as anything that is produced and disseminated freely under the wings of political power and freedom of speech:

Unfortunately, much of what is being said, either we hear it from various politicians or from people who are considered authoritative, we accept it without a critical point of view. (STU)

Most participants believed that the repercussions for the victims of hate discourse are huge, especially if those victims are children, while the psychological harm to the victims from hate discourse is comparable to the exercise of physical violence. The victims feel helpless since there is no particular legislation. Police appears to be ineffective unless a case of direct threat against one’s life is reported. Among the most interesting opinions-personal experiences expressed by one of the interviewees, who, remembering his school years and the ways in which the neo-nazist party of Golden Dawn was trying to disseminate its hate doctrine in secondary education schools in Greece, stated that:

far-right speech has been appealing to young people, especially male adolescents, who are attracted by the “macho” profile that these political ideologies promote. (STU)

According to some participants, especially “when hate speech is articulated on a mass scale, the victims usually get isolated or react in a violent way” (STU), bringing about further social unrest. In addition, the repetition of (online) hate discourse “mainstreamizes” hate discourse and makes it more “acceptable” as behavioral pattern in any given society. In the end of the day, the actual social consequences cannot be measured precisely, since “hate speech perpetuates the stereotypes that fuel hate speech itself, creating a vicious circle” (STU).

Both interviewees and FGs participants, based on their personal experiences and perceptions regarding hate discourse, identified as victims of hate discourse mainly women, immigrants/refugees (different ethnic background) and LGBTQI + people:

“In general, many people are influenced by hate speech, because there are many cases and many examples appear every day” (STU), “We face daily cases of hate speech and especially in social media. Lately, in all the articles Ι read, 60% have been hate rhetoric” (STU), “I have seen mostly racism towards black and non-white people, women at work and other industries, homosexuals and wealth discriminations”. (CIT)

The participants, in their vast majority of young people, experienced in the use of social media, emphatically stated that hate discourse is apparent in social media and news platforms because of the anonymity offered by social media:

Social media users, in my opinion, hide behind a screen with either nicknames or fake profiles, but they can't really face anyone face to face. They have the perception that they will write it, they will convey what they want as they want and from there on, they will not be accountable to anyone. (YJ)

More specifically, interviewees offered examples of repeating or even producing hate discourse by journalists themselves by referring to racist comments about certain groups of people:

“People who use hate speech mainly in writing and the reason is because no one will ask them to speak and so they express themselves without thinking, in a racist way. Mainly against immigrants and homosexuals.” (YJ), “For example, many times in the news we hear “A Romanian stabbed … ”, we automatically “place them all in the same basket”, thus producing hate speech. Identifying a person based on their origin alone is a racist phenomenon. (YJ)

The above-mentioned point was extensively discussed in the focus groups as well. Participants discussed their own experiences as professionals and policy advocates for the groups they represent and concluded that there are certain groups of people in both societies who are treated unfairly and most of the time are victims of online hate discourse. Specific references were made to asylum seekers and refugees who experience discrimination in a broad spectrum of life activities: “When it came to the flow of immigrants, referred to as a new ‘invasion’” (FG2). As it is argued (Waldron 2012, 5; Sobieraj 2019), it is apparent that certain groups of people are valued differently by society and hate discourse contributes significantly to escalation of discrimination among societal groups (Gelber 2002).

Additionally, the focus groups discussion gave emphasis on how and why journalists reproduce hate discourse online:

“There is no motivation for me NOT to reproduce hate rhetoric” (FG1), “The majority of journalists do not cross-reference information, but their role is crucial, and their speech is heard” (FG2), “There is a pervasive racism that journalists themselves do not realize”. (FG2)

Therefore, it could be argued that both societies severely suffer from lack of respect and acceptance of diversity in people which is portrayed on journalism and in societal functions as well. However, this is in accordance with global phenomena observed in different countries and discussed in detail earlier at the literature section (Antigone 2019; Heinze 2016). The aforementioned analysis enhances the argument that hate discourse based on social constructions and perceptions is a multifaceted issue (Sponholz and Christofoletti 2019, 68). Moreover, in the next section the analysis focuses on where and how online hate discourse takes place and what are the consequences of it on individuals and groups.

The Context, Actors and Consequences of Online Hate Discourse

Research participants named a variety of communication parameters, which form the online hate discourse context as Brown (2020) notes. To begin with, the mainstream discourse of politics and the media feed on each other and contribute to hate discourse. The participants of the research provided us with different answers when asked about the perpetrators of online hate discourse. On one hand, several interviewees stressed out the existence of ideologically “compact” and organized groups that act as generators and disseminators of online hate discourse, giving the example of Golden Dawn in Greece and other similar far-right groups (YJ, CIT, CIT). In some cases, the role of hate discourse disseminators might be undertaken by trolls allegedly belonging to even more mainstream -compared to Golden Dawn- political parties, or other groups with specific ideological orientation:

“Hate speech can be expressed by parties’ trolls and bots and individuals who, with a webpage, can have an audience” (CIT), “usually against anti-fascist groups, feminists, refugees. (CIT)

On the other hand, several interviewees thought that hate discourse is generated and disseminated mostly by non-organized individuals “based on the ideas they have nurtured in their social environment” (CIT), who just express their frustration on their adverse living conditions and aim at scapegoating “dangerous” others, in order to resonate their living difficulties (STU). Under this rationale, several individuals might as well form an ad-hoc group with the exclusive aim to disseminate hate discourse online as mentioned by Brown and Sinclair (2019). Both individuals and “organized” groups are facilitated by the “anonymity of the internet” (YJ) and the alteration of the boundaries between the public and the private. Until the emergence of the social media, the expression of personal opinions had been limited to the circle of personal acquaintances of the individual. In the social media context, individuals may openly or anonymously express their opinion in an -at least- quasi-public sphere. This argument is illustrated in several literature sources about the power of internet and social media and how they have formulated the networking environment online (Royzman, McCauley, and Rozin 2005, Oksanen et al. 2014, Brown 2020). In terms of “profiling” the perpetrators of hate speech, participants usually describe them as middle aged (CIT) (or even older), males (YJ, CIT) of low education (YJ, YJ). Even though it has also been mentioned that hate discourse is “expressed in a covert or intermediate way by people of higher education as well” (YJ).

From the focus groups discussions and the in-depth interviews stems that society lacks the ability to critically analyze what is reported or transferred from media sources which are dependent from certain political parties and promote their ideas. It is also outlined by Mollen (2018) that the online environment is a place for sharing and exchanging hate discourse. This is confirmed in the research findings:

“Many people use hate speech to cover some interests, especially in the Far Right” (CIT), “In closed and more conservative societies you can see these incidents thriving. Furthermore, politicians with agendas against these people make things worse” (CIT), “The media channels, or print media, often hide behind parties and thus move according to their orders to cover interests” (CIT), “The hate rhetoric comes mainly from the Right Party. This is due to fascist perceptions transferred through generations” (YJ), “People who have a political power, or who are considered authority, influence other people and motivate them with their speech. Society recognizes hate rhetoric but it does not react because that is how we learned to live”. (STU)

Another aspect discussed thoroughly was the consequences for online hate discourse on victims. Additionally, a lack of empathy by the society at large toward vulnerable groups of people was also mentioned which further confirms the inability to critically analyze information given or presented via any source e.g., Heinze (2016):

As a country, we have experienced exile and pain. Because of this some may think “I lived it and it's their turn now"(YJ), “Users are not able to distinguish between words and use them incorrectly. An example given was the word “illegal immigrant”, saying it was used incorrectly” (CIT), “Society at large lacks the productive power of a large portion of people. Crime is on the rise. Political interests are strengthened, which reinforce racist expediencies, to the detriment of innocent people. In simple words, they “feed” hatred, use fanatical citizens like puppets, to build their careers”. (FG2)

The side effects of online hate discourse for victims were categorised as psychological, as they feel helpless due to discrimination; economic, because they are excluded from the labor market and social life without prospects to lead a fulfilling life with emphasis given on women as it is also mentioned by Amnesty International (2017). Research has also shown that hate discourse affects the (mental) health of victims, threatens democracy by silencing minorities and suppressing their political participation in democratic processes, and therefore strengthens and perpetuates policies of exclusion, and can also incite violence (Miskolci, Kovacova, and Rigova 2018):

“The practice of online hate speech was explained as the inability to accept the diversity from what they believe in. Usually, these perpetrators have a sense of superiority, which they believe makes them stronger than others”. (FG2), “Polarization, division, silencing for society. Psychological issues, subject to violence, bullying / intimidation, make it impossible for victims to integrate into society”. (CIT)

Furthermore, a particularly important point was raised as consequence of hate discourse which affects not only its victims but the entire society. Lack of democratic values and historical knowledge created the floor for far-right politics to emerge, and to cultivate the idea of false prosperity, which is threatened by people or groups who do not fit in the predominant social model. Additionally, proponents of criminalization are concerned about the possible transmission of hatred, the psychological damage that any minority group targeted by hate discourse may suffer, and the threat to the stability and tranquility of society in the event that hate propaganda succeeds in delivering its messages to the majority (Cohen-Almagor 2015:44).

“Some of the real consequences are to disorient citizens from issues vital to themselves and society at large.” (STU), “It is important for the younger people to immerse themselves in the recent history. There are also the dark sides of each period because sometimes bigotry is reproduced due to the lack of knowledge”. (FG1)

In a nutshell, it could be argued that journalism reflects an establishment cultivated by the society itself and its development through the decades (Assimakopoulos, Baiden, and Millar 2017). Having said that, one should not avoid taking into consideration the political evolution throughout Europe and its effect on the countries at hand (La Macchia and Louis 2016). The uprising of the far-right ideology has nurtured within and has gained supporters who are willing to use their power to extrude whatever or whoever stands in their way. Of course, geopolitical and social conditions such as migration have also influenced and facilitated the uprising of such voices. Moreover, the financial crisis has its own merit due to the detriment of the ideal society of wealth and prosperity up until then. Under these circumstances, groups of people with less or no access in decision making processes are confronted with hatred both online and in everyday life (Brown 2020).

Limitations and Recommendations in Countering Hate Discourse

Due to the complexity of the phenomenon itself, the participants named several limitations regarding the “treatment” of hate discourse. Some participants have mentioned the rather “blur” legal framework for countering (online) hate discourse, while others claim that any legal framework, even if it “works properly” is not enough to actually address the issues raised by hate discourse. Still, within a context of increased articulation of hate discourse, like the online public sphere, “anti- hate discourse laws need to be put in practice (Gagliardone I Danit, Alves, and Martinez 2015).

The freedom of speech has to do with the protection from the oppression of power, not with hate discourse and expression. Therefore, the implementation of specific laws against hate speech does not undermine freedom of speech” (FG1):

Many journalists are not aware that phrases and or meanings that have been used by them reproduced hate speech. An opinion can be expressed under certain conditions. (FG2)

In addition, focusing on their personal stances toward hate discourse, the participants appeared rather divided on whether one should interfere when one encounters an instance of online hate discourse. Some interviewees supported that it is rather in vain to reply to hate comments, “because it is meaningless” (CIT) and rather ineffective (Gelber 2002; Touri, Theodosiadou, and Kostarella 2016). Some expressed the fear that their reaction to hate discourse might lead to their own targeting. The “no direct intervention” supporters prefer to report hate discourse to the social media platforms, or the authorities (e.g., the police) (YJ), but even in that case, they doubt the effectiveness of the self-regulation of the digital public sphere, or the effectiveness of the authorities, since “procedures are usually really time-consuming” (CIT). Furthermore, it contributes to preventing this discourse from being accepted as normalcy.

On the contrary, the supporters of direct intervention (“one should intervene, when hate speech takes place”), think that no matter how “effective” this intervention would be, the sheer answer to the perpetrator of hate discourse is something that has to be done, in order to let hate speakers, know that “they are not alone in the social media”. “Given that hate speech is based on irrational argumentation or even lies through fake news, one should try to deconstruct this false argumentation through the projection of rational arguments” (STU). Besides, as relevant research has shown, ignoring hate discourse can lead to its dissemination in various forms (against women, minorities, sexual preferences, etc.) (London et al. 2020).

Acknowledging the limitations that journalists may encounter in their journalistic routines (e.g., political and financial interests of their respective organizations, challenging working conditions), and the “lack of adequate education for facing/diminishing hate speech”, several participants have underlined the necessity for a “battery” of skills a journalist should have in order to be able to locate and “fight” hate discourse, even though it has been mentioned that in quite a few cases it’s the journalists that deliberately create and disseminate hate discourse, according to their ideological orientations (FG1, FG2). These capacities can be built through targeted training, since the ability:

To articulate a concrete set of actual fact-based arguments would be the best way to confront online hate speech. Hate speakers usually seek to influence emotionally the receivers of their messages hence they lack actual argumentation. (STU)

The rationale of the education seeking to fight hate discourse should have an inherently socio-centric rationale (CIT). It should “teach” what sexism, racism and other similar social phenomena and how they degrade social life (Gelber 2002). Thus, it will seek to create a common ground for fighting the public articulation of hate discourse. This training for journalists should include the understanding of specific ethical principles (equality, justice, dignity etc.) that would seek to diminish the probability of the production of hate discourse on behalf of the journalist. In addition, several participants proposed the development of journalists’ capacities toward recognizing the most frequent producers of hate discourse and try to isolate them (e.g., trolls, journalists exercising low quality journalism).

This kind of education can be implemented in the Universities’ Media Departments and either become part of different courses, or enrich the already existing academic programmes as new, independent courses. (FG2)

Several participants proposed a slightly different educational approach. One that addresses the general population (not only journalists), starts from the early school years as an official and integral part of the educational system and evolves more like a life-long learning procedure, seeking to teach, among others, the analysis of the notions of stereotypes, prejudices and empathy as a way to enhance the rationale of mutual understanding and social proximity (FG1, CIT). It should also try to raise awareness in terms of abolishing stereotypical expressions used in our everyday language (e.g., sexist speech that exists in several widely used expressions) (Assimakopoulos, Baiden, and Millar 2017; Del Felice et al. 2017; Gagliardone I Danit, Alves, and Martinez 2015; Gelber 2002).

It would be good to see the source of the problem and not the surface. To better equip journalists with technology, it would be good to provide a series of seminars to keep them informed for life. In matters of education, it would also be good to add a word map to avoid misuse of words. (YJ)

Higher education programs of universities also need to upgrade their curriculums and provide students with opportunities to develop a variety of skills and a solid academic knowledge consisted of a background of general knowledge, which will enhance their ability to understand and approach the world:

There is a need for training due to lack of basic knowledge. Universities tend to provide more practical tools. It is important for journalists to develop the reasons why hate speech exists. (FG2)

In more practical terms, according to several interviewees, this education should include -apart from the theoretical discussion of various notions- a basic guide on terminology, clarifying for example, the difference between “refugee” and “immigrant” (FG2). On top of that, any seminars or courses that might take place, should include people coming from “marginalized” social groups as well (e.g., disabled people, refugees, LGBTQI + community, drug addicts) (FG1). The expectation is that this knowledge surrounding media structure, function, and projected content can enhance the ability of individuals to detect and challenge online hate content, understand certain outcomes, recognize their biased opinions and prejudices, and encourage the elaboration and dissemination of arguments to address this phenomenon (Gagliardone I Danit, Alves, and Martinez 2015, 48).

Even though almost all interviewees acknowledged the value of education and pointed it out as the only substantial but long-term “therapy” against hate discourse, some of them also expressed their “pessimism” regarding the effective treatment of hate speech: “There is no magical solution” against hate discourse, since “truth is usually “weak” against fake news” (YJ). Additionally, professional licensure (Rayman, et. al 2010) was also discussed in terms of its renewal based on a life-long program of vocational training:

“It would be good for the experienced Journalists to upgrade and get closer to the younger ones. It would be good to have experiential workshops as well” (YJ), “A committee or a specialized body can be created that can offer a continuing education and training to Journalists”. (FG1)

In conclusion the research findings agree with the relevant literature about the basic social skills required to reduce the likelihood of expressing racist discourse include empathy and civility in communication (Jakubowicz et al. 2017, 344). In some cases, the effective argumentation and skills required to articulate personal beliefs and opinions with respect to fellow citizens are included among the desired learning outcomes set out in the relevant educational programs (Gagliardone I Danit, Alves, and Martinez 2015, 46)

Concluding Remarks

Our qualitative research embarked on an exploration to discern the characteristics of hate discourse within the media landscapes of Greece and Cyprus, a venture motivated by the escalating visibility of hate speech in the public domain, as substantiated by prior studies. This inquiry sought to unveil the perceptions and experiences of media professionals and public communication practitioners, thereby contributing to the broader understanding and evaluation of frameworks and concepts pertinent to online hate discourse, alongside the identification of potential barriers and strategies for its mitigation. The significance of addressing online hate discourse transcends the immediate victims; it is a pervasive issue that implicates society at large, affecting diverse and vulnerable groups such as migrants, refugees, LGBTQI + individuals, and women across various social settings, including the labor market, family, and society.

Throughout our analysis, it became evident that the research participants possessed strong opinions regarding the origins, contexts, and necessary interventions by journalists and media organizations to counteract hate discourse, whether online or offline. The advent of social media has revolutionized traditional journalism, compelling journalists, especially the younger cohort, to prioritize the accumulation of “followers” and “clicks” over the production of original, meaningful content. This dynamic has led to a culture of imitation among journalists, detracting from the authenticity and integrity of journalistic work. Moreover, in Cyprus, the normalization of racist attitudes, images, and behaviors has alarmingly permeated mainstream society, manifesting freely in public discourse, and accompanied by a rise in hate crimes annually. The complicity of political discourse in fostering these attitudes further exacerbates the situation, with public officials and politicians engaging in hate speech unchecked.

A pivotal finding of our research underscores the critical role and potential of journalists in combating online hate discourse. The pursuit of followers and clicks alone undermines the ability of journalists to remain vigilant to the importance of cultural respect and the avoidance of further marginalizing diverse communities through the perpetuation of bigotry and discrimination. Our data suggest that journalists require a robust knowledge base and effective tools to identify and respond to hate discourse. Moreover, the development of a strong ethical and deontological foundation is essential, promoting self-regulation within the profession.

However, in the face of a competitive and politically polarized media landscape, self-regulation alone is insufficient. The establishment of an independent institution dedicated to training and supporting journalists, documenting incidents of hate discourse online, and advocating for policy changes and educational programs emerges as a viable solution. Such an organization could play a pivotal role in fostering systemic changes to diminish the prevalence and impact of online hate, ensuring a safer and more inclusive digital environment. Moreover, continuous education and lifelong learning are vital for enhancing journalistic quality and integrity. Nonetheless, the reflection of societal values in journalism underscores the imperative for societal transformation toward greater tolerance, diversity, and respect for human rights. Addressing the deep-seated social and ideological roots of online hate discourse demands an ongoing and concerted effort, encompassing formal and informal education and public initiatives to disseminate information and cultivate awareness.

On the other hand, amidst this recognition, a notable subset of the participants in our project conveyed sentiments of pessimism concerning the efficacy of interventions aimed at curtailing hate speech. This expression of pessimism among certain interviewees warrants deeper exploration. Such sentiments may stem from a variety of factors, including skepticism regarding the ability of educational initiatives to address deeply entrenched biases or the perceived limitations of formal educational structures in reaching marginalized communities most vulnerable to hate rhetoric. At the same time, this pessimism encapsulates a nuanced perspective reflective of a multifaceted dialogue surrounding the management of hate speech within societal frameworks. In effect, it accentuates that although educational interventions are investments in future generations’ capacity to navigate and challenge divisive narratives effectively, the current problems remain untouched.

In considering these perspectives, it becomes evident that addressing hate speech necessitates a multifaceted approach that extends beyond education alone. While education remains a cornerstone in cultivating a culture of tolerance and respect, its efficacy is contingent upon complementary efforts that address the structural inequalities and systemic injustices underpinning the proliferation of hate speech. Thus, this discourse underscores the imperative for comprehensive strategies that combine educational interventions with broader societal initiatives aimed at promoting inclusivity, challenging discriminatory narratives, and fostering a collective commitment to upholding human rights and dignity. In other words, a comprehensive approach, involving coordinated actions by all stakeholders, is crucial for understanding and tackling the causes of hate discourse at both national and international levels. Moreover, fostering public awareness about discrimination and promoting a media agenda that champions diversity and tolerance across all educational levels is essential for cultivating a more inclusive and respectful society.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the of European Union’s Rights Equality and Citizenship Programme (2014-2020) under Grant 875422 — SOpHiSM — [REC-AG-2019/REC-RRAC-RACI-AG-2019].

Notes

1 Up to this point we have been using the term hate speech, since it’s the most widely used term in the public sphere and relevant research projects to describe the specific phenomenon.

2 Though in our theoretical background we opt for the term hate discourse, in our analysis, the terms “hate speech” or “hate rhetoric” are used when articulated by the participants in our research.