“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

dherrera@hum.uc3m.es@susanaherrera (twitter)

Academia.edu/SusanaHerrera

cmacia@hum.uc3m.es

Thank you very much for your attention