Keywords: News, media, journalism and public opinion

Today, many journalists face hostile audiences (Nilsson & Örnebring 2016). We investigate anticipatory reciprocal effects of hostile audience reactions to news reports (Kepplinger, 2007) – i.e., effects on journalists’ anticipations of audience hostility and the ways they deal with them.
Journalists’ anticipations of audience hostility are presumed effects of their news reports on their audience (Müller & Hohlfeld 2013). Typically, people defy or comply with presumed hostile media effects on others (Tal’ Or et al., 2013).
Journalists’ reactions to anticipated hostility likely depend on their experiences. Studies indicate that journalists feel negative about public audience attacks and comply with audiences’ hostile views (e.g., through self-censorship, Nilsson & Örnebring 2016). Other studies suggest that journalists interpret audience attacks as proofs of their independence (cf. Lischka, 2017; Muddiman & Stroud 2017). They might thus experience them positively.

Hypotheses

H1: The more often journalists experienced public audience hostility the more often they anticipate audience hostility during their editorial work.
H2: The more journalists perceived past incidents as severe the more negative and the less positive they felt after it.
H3: The more positive journalists felt after past incidents the more they defy anticipated hostility (e.g., use exaggerations).
H4: The more negative journalists felt after past incidents the more they comply with anticipated hostility (e.g., use careful language).

Method

Based on a compilation for PR practitioners, 2.969 German print journalists were contacted in summer 2017. 437 completed the questionnaire (15%).

Independent variables:
Journalists were asked how often they had experienced public audience hostility. They were asked to rate the severity of the «most massive» attack (severity of "aggression" and "insults"), their emotional reactions (negative: "annoyance", "helplessness"; positive: "pleasure") and the presumed negative / positive influence of the incident on their reputation (among "colleagues", "audience", "sources").

Outcome variables:
Journalists were asked how often they anticipate audience hostility and to rate how they deal with anticipations (defiance: „sharpen my position“, „stir up the hornets’ nest“, compliance: „question my views“, „use careful language“).

Results

60 % of the journalists who had experienced public attacks (n = 327) reacted to the most massive incident with annoyance. 37 % felt pleased.

The more often journalists experienced public hostility the more often they anticipate it (r = .349; p < .001).

An SEM based on all journalists who experienced audience hostility and who anticipate it at least „rarely“ shows (n = 299 (26 missings); Chi2 = 59.41; df = 45; p = .073; C/MIN = 1.320; NFI = .932; CFI = .982; RMSEA = .034; PCLOSE = .871):

- The more severe journalists rated the most massive attack the more negative and the less positive they felt after it.
- The more positive they felt the more they defy anticipated audience hostility.
- The more negative they felt the more they comply with anticipated hostility.
- The more positive they felt the more they presume that the past attack enhanced their reputation – encouraging them to defy anticipated hostility.

Discussion

Audience hostility might not only have a “chilling” effect on journalists but also encourage them to provoke their audience. This might contribute to polarizing society.