Conceptualizing journalistic self-censorship in post-conflict societies: A qualitative perspective on the journalistic perception of news production in Serbia, Kosovo and Macedonia

Abstract

Post-conflict societies are subject to other societal forces than non-conflict or conflict societies. As a result, news production might differ between these three societal forms. In conflict, news is influenced either by the affiliation with a conflict party or at gunpoint. In non-conflict, it is shaped by manifold influences that are mostly connected to journalistic routines. In addition, post-conflict news production can be characterized by a high relevance of the conflict context and an emerging importance of routines. This article analyzes how journalists perceive self-censorship as an influence on post-conflict news production. It conceptualizes self-censorship as an analytic category and introduces different forms of self-censorship. Finally, the authors demonstrate the relevance of self-censorship as a force in post-conflict news production with the help of qualitative interviews conducted with journalists in Macedonia, Kosovo and Serbia.

Self-censorships in Ukraine: Distinguishing between the silences of television journalism

“…Building on insights developed empirically in my study among TV journalists in Kyiv, Ukraine, I argue that scholars should pay more attention to the heterogeneity of empirical forms of self-censorship, and to the ways in which these occur in the same context. Contributing to existing scholarly understandings of self-censorship (Bourdieu, 1991; Jungblut and Hoxha, 2017; Lee and Chan, 2009; Mortensen, 2018; Schimpfössl and Yablokov, 2017), I propose two initial parameters for disaggregating the concept of self-censorship. They accommodate the various kinds of intersecting heterogeneity of origins, mechanisms and effects that characterise the empirical forms of self-censorship.…”

“…For example, Cook and Heilmann (2010: 3) distinguish between public and private self-censorship, depending on whether the subjects align their decision to censor themselves with an external, public censor. Extending Cook and Heilmann’s argument (2013), Jungblut and Hoxha (2017) go as far as to propose a matrix of 12 analytically possible forms of self-censorship 1 which they apply, where appropriate, to the data gathered during their research on post-conflict journalism in the Balkans. The forms differ in accordance with their public/private motivation, their origins and the persons who might be affected by the failure to self-censor (Jungblut and Hoxha, 2017: 226–229).…”

“…Extending Cook and Heilmann’s argument (2013), Jungblut and Hoxha (2017) go as far as to propose a matrix of 12 analytically possible forms of self-censorship 1 which they apply, where appropriate, to the data gathered during their research on post-conflict journalism in the Balkans. The forms differ in accordance with their public/private motivation, their origins and the persons who might be affected by the failure to self-censor (Jungblut and Hoxha, 2017: 226–229). These axes of distinction provide a useful guide for empirical research.…”

“…These axes of distinction provide a useful guide for empirical research. However, despite the authors’ recognition of various possible forms of self-censorship, they suggest that these operate according to a single (albeit somewhat flexible) logic: at the core of self-censorial practice is invariably an individual decision as to whether an utterance or a publication would be ‘in line’ with one’s own or peers’ professional judgement, one’s political ideology, superior’s opinions, market expectations and so on (Jungblut and Hoxha, 2017: 228). While individual conformity to expectations and pressures is potentially an efficient explanation for self-censorship, I believe that it is important not to settle the question of which social logic guides self-censorial practice in advance, without understanding actors’ own perspectives on what motivates their practices in particular circumstances (cf.…”

“…While pragmatic self-censorship is relatively well understood in the literature (e.g. Bourdieu, 1991), and ethical self-censorship overlaps with forms described by Jungblut and Hoxha (2017), it is significant that there is variation across practices in the three groups, and that they are reported within the same professional community, and indeed, in one case, by the same person.…”