The rule of law in a democratic society demands fairness, justice, and respect for human dignity. Violence, hateful speech, racism, and misogyny have no place in a system that aspires to equality. Yet in the modern world, these destructive forces are not only surviving—they are often thriving. One of the most powerful reasons is the role of mass media.
An ethical media landscape would act as a filter. It would recognize that giving airtime and visibility to hate-mongers only strengthens their reach. Instead of amplifying racism or misogyny, it would quietly let those voices fade, refusing to provide them with the oxygen of publicity. Media, in this sense, would serve the public good: informing citizens with truth, protecting vulnerable groups from harmful narratives, and upholding democratic values.
But the advent of mass media has changed the balance. Traditional outlets, driven by ratings and readership, often treat hate-filled rhetoric as “newsworthy” because it attracts attention. The rise of digital and social media has only magnified this problem. Algorithms reward anger and sensationalism, ensuring that hateful speech spreads further and faster than reasoned discussion. What should have remained at the margins of society is suddenly given center stage, reaching millions with a single broadcast, headline, or viral post.
This amplification has consequences. Hate becomes normalized when it is constantly repeated. Misogyny becomes excused when it is disguised as “debate.” Racism gains legitimacy when it is presented without challenge, as though it were just another perspective. In this way, mass media—intentionally or not—can become complicit in the erosion of social cohesion and the rise of intolerance.
The solution is not censorship, but responsibility. Media outlets must adopt and enforce ethical standards that prioritize accuracy, fairness, and the well-being of society. They must ask themselves: Does this story inform, or does it inflame? Does this coverage challenge hatred, or does it give it a platform? Journalism should be a tool for building understanding, not for spreading division.
A truly ethical media would not hand the microphone to those who seek to divide. It would not confuse freedom of expression with freedom to incite hate. Instead, it would shine light on voices of reason, dialogue, and justice—those that strengthen democracy rather than weaken it.
In the end, mass media has immense power. It can either feed the fire of hatred, or it can help extinguish it. The choice lies in whether ethics, not profit or popularity, guide the hand that controls the broadcast.
Thanks, Dave — a thoughtful and timely piece. I agree the issue isn’t censorship but responsibility: amplification is a choice, and so is context. Here on OAM we don’t run to heavy rules beyond basic civility, but we can still model good practice as creators: verify before sharing, avoid linking directly to hate content, add context when discussing harmful narratives, and elevate work that informs rather than inflames.
Perhaps a simple pre-post checklist helps: does this inform? is it accurate? might it cause harm or target a group? does it add light, not heat? If we each hold to that, we reduce the “oxygen” for division without shutting down debate
In the end democracy depends upon everyone, especially those in positions of power and influence, respecting the norms. We are seeing now how things can rapidly be destroyed if these norms are simply ignored or cynically and deliberately undermined.