Woke Journalism is Bad News

Woke journ­al­ism is bad news.

No one could have missed the ongo­ing cul­ture war.

In the spir­it of can­cel cul­ture, any­one who dis­agrees should be silenced by semi-organ­ised online slacktivists.

But what hap­pens if we allow extremes to dom­in­ate the news agenda? To con­sider woke journ­al­ism to be bad news might be a gross underestimation.

Here we go:

When News Narratives Become Online Activism

The cur­rent land­scape of journ­al­ism, often labelled as ‘woke’ by its detract­ors, presents a com­plex media ecosystem.

The per­vas­ive cul­ture war, a term that has become a main­stay in con­tem­por­ary dis­course, is an omni­present nar­rat­ive impossible to overlook.

There exists a notion, per­haps in line with the ideals of what is pop­ularly known as ‘can­cel cul­ture,’ pos­it­ing that those who diverge from vir­tue sig­nal­ing find them­selves at risk of being ostra­cised by a vocal cadre of online activists.

However, one must pon­der the implic­a­tions of allow­ing such online act­iv­ism to steer the dir­ec­tion of our news nar­rat­ive. Describing the poten­tial out­come as merely ‘bad news’ might be a gross under­state­ment, hint­ing at a more pro­found, nuanced dilemma.

Left-Leaning Journalism? Fine By Me!

In journ­al­ism, the pre­dis­pos­i­tion towards left-lean­ing per­spect­ives emerges more as a stat­ist­ic­al tend­ency than a stead­fast principle.

Contrary to the stance often adop­ted by many in pub­lic rela­tions, I har­bour no qualms about this left­ward inclin­a­tion among journalists.

There’s a cer­tain com­fort in know­ing that journ­al­ists tire­lessly endeav­our to bring to light the actions of vari­ous elites.

While pos­sess­ing power and influ­ence doesn’t inher­ently cor­rupt, it undeni­ably mag­ni­fies the reper­cus­sions of det­ri­ment­al actions. Given the con­straints on journ­al­ist­ic resources, it’s prag­mat­ic to focus where the impact is most significant.

It’s not neces­sar­ily that the left excels in nar­rat­ive craft; stat­ist­ic­ally, their stor­ies often hold more weight.

For me, the pre­val­ence of journ­al­ists with a left-lean­ing bias is a cir­cum­stance I find quite acceptable.

Political Correctness in Journalism

But there are also extrem­ist vari­et­ies. From a news media per­spect­ive, one par­tic­u­larly haz­ard­ous per­sua­sion is where journ­al­ism aban­dons stor­ies about indi­vidu­als on behalf of sweep­ing gen­er­al­isa­tions based on demo­graph­ic affinity.

I’m talk­ing about woke journalism:

“With an increase in social con­scious­ness and a rise in the mil­len­ni­al cul­ture of being ‘woke’, there has come an increase demand of polit­ic­al cor­rect­ness espe­cially in journ­al­ism. On one hand lies the decency of a report that gives journ­al­ists an author­ity to phrase their stor­ies in an eth­ic­al way using polit­ic­al cor­rect­ness. On the oth­er hand, it does hinder hon­esty or true free­dom of speech.”
Source: Political cor­rect­ness: An obstacle for media?

When we fil­ter news stor­ies through eth­ni­city, group beliefs, sexu­al ori­ent­a­tion, and ancient injustices, we get journ­al­ists pro­mot­ing a man­dat­ory dis­reg­ard of objectiv­ity on behalf of sub­ject­ive interests.

Read also: How To Fight Populism

This blatant dis­reg­ard for the truth unites the alt-left­ist woke move­ment with their ideo­lo­gic­al coun­ter­parts — the fas­cists and the populists.

Should journ­al­ism take sides here?

Woke Journalism in the Post-Triage Era

Imagine being a med­ic arriv­ing at the scene of a massive acci­dent with lots of wounded people all around you. 

Triage, the prac­tice of med­ic­al pri­or­ity, means that you won’t tend to those scream­ing the loudest first; they have enough energy and life spark to shout and make noise. 

If sav­ing lives is the medic’s pri­or­ity, they should pri­or­it­ise those who can’t even make noise to pro­tect themselves.

If the med­ic, how­ever well-inten­tioned or right­eous, takes it upon them­self to save people based on group iden­tity, the whole med­ic­al sys­tem will quickly start to break down from within.

“We’ve been here before — on col­lege cam­puses in the late 1960s, when stu­dent pro­test­ers occu­pied build­ings, mak­ing demands for cur­ricular and oth­er changes, and admin­is­trat­ors and prom­in­ent fac­ulty mem­bers gave in across the board. The stu­dents at Columbia and Cornell were lead­ing a revolu­tion from the left, and the author­it­ies who sur­rendered to them were lib­er­als. The lib­er­als fol­ded because they were ter­ri­fied of bad pub­li­city, but also because they felt shamed by the mor­al pur­ity, clar­ity, pas­sion, and cer­tainty of the young rebels. In all those respects, our news­room revolu­tions are fol­low­ing the same script.”
Source: The woke revolu­tion in American journ­al­ism has begun

Team Woke vs Team Resentful

“On social media, the coun­try seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and the resent­ful. Team Resentment is manned — pun very much inten­ded — by people who are pre­dom­in­antly old and almost exclus­ively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and pre­dom­in­antly black, brown, or Asian (though white “allies” do their duti­ful part). These teams are roughly equal in num­ber, and they dis­agree most vehe­mently, as well as most routinely about the catchall known as polit­ic­al cor­rect­ness. Reality is noth­ing like this. As schol­ars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report pub­lished Wednesday, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarised Landscape,” most Americans don’t fit into either of these camps.”
Source: Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture

Where have all bal­anced voices gone if most people don’t fit into these loud, self-pro­claimed, self-right­eous coalitions?

Where are all those people who don’t have a pub­lic voice?

Platform Amplifiers Instead of Platform Providers

Suppose we allow the news media to become plat­form amp­li­fi­ers instead of plat­form pro­viders. In doing so, we pave the way for cen­sor­ship, can­cel cul­ture, pro­pa­ganda, and dam­aging iden­tity polit­ics on both the far left and the far right of the polit­ic­al spectrum.

It’s not a journalist’s job to pro­tect and pro­mote those who already have a voice and a plat­form. But woke journ­al­ism will empower already strong voices over uncom­fort­able ones.

How does this work?

There are three psy­cho­lo­gic­al explan­a­tion mod­els worth considering:

Model 1: The Spiral of Silence

The Spiral of Silence Theory

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s (1916 – 2010) well-doc­u­mented the­ory on the spir­al of silence (1974) explains why the fear of isol­a­tion due to peer exclu­sion will pres­sure pub­lics to silence their opinions.

The the­ory was developed in the late 1970s in West Germany, partly in response to Noelle-Neumann’s obser­va­tions of how pub­lic opin­ion seemed to shift dur­ing the Nazi régime and post-war Germany.

The spir­al of silence the­ory is based on the idea that people fear social isol­a­tion. This fear influ­ences their will­ing­ness to express their opin­ions, espe­cially if they believe these opin­ions are in the minority.

Rather than risk­ing social isol­a­tion, many choose silence over express­ing their opinions.

As the dom­in­ant coali­tion stands unop­posed, they push the con­fines of what’s accept­able down a nar­row­er and nar­row­er fun­nel, the so-called opin­ion cor­ridor). ¹Opinion cor­ridor. (2023, April 8). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​O​p​i​n​i​o​n​_​c​o​r​r​i​dor

Noelle-Neumann emphas­ised the medi­a’s role in shap­ing pub­lic per­cep­tion of what opin­ions are dom­in­ant or pop­u­lar, thus influ­en­cing the spir­al of silence. 

Populism and Cancel Culture

The mech­an­isms behind Elisabeth Noelle Neumann’s spir­al of silence the­ory could fuel destruct­ive soci­et­al phe­nom­ena like pop­u­lism and can­cel culture:

In both cases, the spir­al of silence con­trib­utes to a polar­ised envir­on­ment. Views become dom­in­ant not neces­sar­ily because they are more pop­u­lar but because oppos­ing views are not expressed due to fear of social isol­a­tion or repercussions.

Learn more: The Spiral of Silence

Model 2: The Conversion Theory

The Conversion Theory

The social psy­cho­lo­gist Serge Moscovici found that we become more engaged if we belong to a mis­rep­res­en­ted minor­ity.

The dis­pro­por­tion­al power of minor­it­ies is known as the con­ver­sion the­ory. ⁴Conversion the­ory of minor­ity influ­ence. (2021, February 12). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​C​o​n​v​e​r​s​i​o​n​_​t​h​e​o​r​y​_​o​f​_​m​i​n​o​r​i​t​y​_​i​n​f​l​u​e​nce

“In groups, the minor­ity can have a dis­pro­por­tion­ate effect, con­vert­ing many ‘major­ity’ mem­bers to their own cause. This is because many major­ity group mem­bers are not strong believ­ers in its cause. They may be simply going along because it seems easi­er or that there is no real altern­at­ive. They may also have become dis­il­lu­sioned with the group pur­pose, pro­cess, or lead­er­ship and are seek­ing a viable altern­at­ive.”
Source: Changingminds​.org ⁵Conversion Theory. (2023). Changingminds​.org. https://​chan​ging​minds​.org/​e​x​p​l​a​n​a​t​i​o​n​s​/​t​h​e​o​r​i​e​s​/​c​o​n​v​e​r​s​i​o​n​_​t​h​e​o​r​y​.​htm

How does it work?

The social cost of hold­ing a dif­fer­ent view than the major­ity is high. This increased cost explains why minor­it­ies often hold their opin­ions more firmly. It takes determ­in­a­tion to go against the norm. ⁶Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a the­ory of con­ver­sion beha­viour. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 209 – 239. New York: Academic Press

In con­trast, many major­ity mem­bers don’t hold their opin­ions so firmly. They might belong to the major­ity for no oth­er reas­on than that every­one else seems to be. ⁷Chryssochoou, X. and Volpato, C. (2004). Social Influence and the Power of Minorities: An Analysis of the Communist Manifesto, Social Justice Research, 17, 4, 357 – 388

According to con­ver­sion the­ory, while major­it­ies often claim norm­at­ive social influ­ence, minor­it­ies strive for eth­ic­al high ground. 

Conversion Theory Examples

Given the power of norm­at­ive social influ­ence, minor­it­ies typ­ic­ally form tight-knit groups that can gath­er around a core mes­sage.

Most big shifts usu­ally start with a small group of ded­ic­ated people:

Minority Influence: A PR Approach

Organisations with CSR aspir­a­tions can cul­tiv­ate a sense of pur­pose and accom­plish­ment among par­ti­cipants by align­ing with a move­ment that chal­lenges a stu­pid majority.

Since we tend to favour under­dogs, liais­ing with a care­fully selec­ted minor­ity can be a game-chan­ging PR strategy.

Minority spokes­per­sons with sol­id con­vic­tions often pos­sess valu­able know­ledge and author­ity, enhan­cing their per­suas­ive abil­it­ies and influence.

Disproportionately, minor­it­ies can con­vert numer­ous major­ity mem­bers to their cause, as many in the major­ity may have merely fol­lowed the path of least res­ist­ance, made decisions without much con­sid­er­a­tion, or lacked viable alternatives.

Additionally, a sig­ni­fic­ant seg­ment of the major­ity might be dis­il­lu­sioned with their group’s pur­pose, pro­cess, or lead­er­ship, ren­der­ing them more recept­ive to altern­at­ive proposals.

Proceed With Caution, Please

As PR pro­fes­sion­als, we must be cau­tious when imple­ment­ing the con­ver­sion theory.

Minorities aren’t always right, and major­it­ies aren’t always wrong. Minorities can hold futile views while still exer­cising a dis­pro­por­tion­ate amount of power.

Learn more: Conversion Theory: The Disproportionate Influence of Minorities

Model 3: The Amplification Hypothesis

The Amplification Hypothesis

It’s com­mon to find that coun­ter­ar­gu­ments strengthen exist­ing beliefs instead of weak­en­ing them. 

The harder you attack someone verbally, the more you con­vince them of their belief, not yours.

The phe­nomen­on is known as the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is, where dis­play­ing cer­tainty about an atti­tude when talk­ing with anoth­er per­son increases and hardens that attitude.

“Across exper­i­ments, it is demon­strated that increas­ing atti­tude cer­tainty strengthens atti­tudes (e.g., increases their res­ist­ance to per­sua­sion) when atti­tudes are uni­valent but weak­ens atti­tudes (e.g., decreases their res­ist­ance to per­sua­sion) when atti­tudes are ambi­val­ent. These res­ults are con­sist­ent with the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is.“
Source: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ⁸Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2008). A new look at the con­sequences of atti­tude cer­tainty: The amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, … Continue read­ing

How does the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is work? 

In a threat­en­ing situ­ation or emer­gency, we resort to the prim­al (fast­est) part of the brain and sur­viv­al instincts (fight, flight and freeze). ⁹Surviving the Storm: Understanding the Nature of Attacks held at Animal Care Expo, 2011 in Orlando, FL.

Establishing com­mon ground and exhib­it­ing empathy demon­strates a genu­ine under­stand­ing of their per­spect­ive, fos­ter­ing trust and open­ness to your ideas. Conversely, a stra­tegic mis­match of atti­tudes can serve as a power­ful coun­ter­meas­ure if your object­ive is to deflect per­suas­ive attempts.

Persuade

To per­suade, align your atti­tude with the tar­get. Otherwise, you will only act to cre­ate resistance.

Provoke

To put off a per­suader, mis­match their atti­tudes. When they are logic­al, be emo­tion­al, and vice versa. 

Learn more: The Amplification Hypothesis: How To Counter Extreme Positions

How To Navigate Cancel Culture

How To Navigate Cancel Culture

“Cancel cul­ture or call-out cul­ture is a phrase con­tem­por­ary to the late 2010s and early 2020s used to refer to a form of ostra­cism in which someone is thrust out of social or pro­fes­sion­al circles — wheth­er it be online, on social media, or in per­son. Those sub­ject to this ostra­cism are said to have been ‘can­celled’.”
Source: Wikipedia ¹³Cancel cul­ture. (2023, January 4). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​C​a​n​c​e​l​_​c​u​l​t​ure

The cul­ture war with de-plat­form­ing, can­cel cul­ture, online lynch mobs, woke journ­al­ism, pop­u­lism, fake news, and mor­al slackt­iv­ism are fast becom­ing our biggest chal­lenges as PR professionals.

“Cancel cul­ture on social media is a form of pub­lic sham­ing that aims to dif­fuse pub­lic dis­course and pro­mote tol­er­ance, but can also be viewed as a form of intol­er­ance against oppos­ing views.”
Source: Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities ¹⁴Velasco, J. (2020). You are Cancelled: Virtual Collective Consciousness and the Emergence of Cancel Culture as Ideological Purging. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 12. … Continue read­ing

Focus On What Truly Matters

Here’s how to nav­ig­ate can­cel cul­ture as an organisation:

Learn more: Cancel Culture is Evil

The Political Left Should Beware of Woke Journalism, Too

I firmly believe we need journ­al­ism of the clas­sic­al left, where the indi­vidu­al without a voice is giv­en a plat­form to speak truth to power. 

We need object­ive and brave report­ing in the face of severe reper­cus­sions from organ­ised, estab­lished, and insti­tu­tion­al­ised elites. We need journ­al­ists who care more about the truth than polit­ic­al correctness.

It makes sense for journ­al­ism to lean mainly toward the left. 

But if that left goes woke, journ­al­ism ceases and becomes activism.

“It is undeni­able, how­ever, that the propaga­tion of polit­ic­al cor­rect­ness exerts pres­sure on journ­al­ism and that polit­ic­al cor­rect­ness in its dif­fer­ent facets — inform­a­tion bans, top­ic bans, and gov­ern­ment­al lan­guage reg­u­la­tion as well as a trend towards intol­er­ance — poses a threat to inde­pend­ent and self-con­fid­ent journ­al­ism.”
Source: Journalism Research, Edition 1, 2021: Political cor­rect­ness – a threat to journalism?