It’s no secret that many celebrities are terrified of being canceled. From Blake Lively to Kendall Jenner, numerous public figures have faced dents to their reputations, floods of hate comments, mass unfollowing, and boycotts. However, it’s not just celebrities who fear canceling; journalists do too.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines cancel culture as “the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure”.
The most dangerous aspect of cancel culture is its finality, shutting people down completely instead of giving them a chance to improve. In a digital world where outrage spreads like wildfire, social media spreads hate rapidly, and many people, driven by herd mentality, jump on the bandwagon, cancel culture has increased drastically, becoming a major challenge for journalists to face today.
One reason journalists are canceled is guilt by association. This was evident last year when thousands of subscribers unfollowed The Washington Post and attempted to cancel the news organization. The reason? Jeff Bezos, who owns the paper through investments, did not endorse Kamala Harris.
Although Washington Post journalists had no control over Bezos’ political actions, they suffered the consequences of the backlash. NPR reported that subscriptions dropped by over 8%, which was reflected in the journalists’ salaries (Folkenflik, David).
Ironically, in an attempt to cancel Bezos, the real harm was done to the journalists. This highlights an alarming aspect of cancel culture. It can often punish those who have no direct involvement in the issue, discouraging independent journalism and fostering fear.
More than anyone, opinion journalists are vulnerable to this culture. Dr. Segal of Psychology Today describes cancel culture as the act of “cutting off those you don’t agree with” (Segal, Elizabeth). Opinion journalists are hired to share their personal perspectives, but if a large enough group declares their opinion incorrect, they face the consequences of losing their jobs and livelihoods. While canceling can be used to bring injustices to light, it has increasingly silenced diverse viewpoints. As a field built on discourse and debate, journalistic freedom has been threatened by cancel culture.
There is no definitive solution to stop cancel culture, as it’s part of the ugly human tendency to ostracize those who challenge mainstream beliefs. Sometimes, cancel culture can be positive, shedding light on an individual promoting racist, sexist, or harmful beliefs. But other times, it is a negative dividing force, shaming people for simply having different beliefs. It can almost be called today’s version of the witch hunts.
However, there are still ways to protect journalists. Fostering media literacy can help readers understand the nature of reporting and opinion-based articles, preventing snap judgments. It is important to teach consumers that the point of opinion articles is that some people may agree and others may disagree. It is not stating a fact. It is simply sharing a perspective, which may comfort some and teach something new to others.
Additionally, accountability should focus on individuals rather than institutions, as canceling a newsroom for the actions of one person only serves to weaken journalism as a whole. Most importantly, awareness and coverage of this topic can educate the public on its harms and help shift from a culture of public shaming to constructive feedback that can lead to genuine progress.
While cancel culture is not going away anytime soon, shifting the focus from mass cancellation to accountability can create a safer world for journalists. Journalists need to be able to report, analyze, and express opinions without the constant fear of being erased. After all, a society that silences its reporters is a society that silences itself.
