Reciprocal journalism’s double-edged sword: How journalists resolve cognitive dissonance after experiencing harassment from audiences on social media

Abstract

Reciprocal journalism is a daily practice for American journalists. Previous studies show it benefits journalists, newsrooms, and audiences (e.g. Coddington, Lewis & Holton, 2018). Conversely, journalists also experience harassment when interacting with audiences online, causing them to view audiences less favorably (Lewis, Zamith, & Coddington, 2020). Through in-depth interviews with 24 professional and former journalists, this study finds journalists experience cognitive dissonance after experiencing harassment during reciprocal journalism, but they are not likely to stop the practice due to organizational and individual benefits perceived as greater than the negatives. The study finds journalists feel personally responsible for resolving dissonance and often use unhealthy resolution techniques like normalization, victim blaming, or perspective-taking to deal with online abuse. The end result could mean dangerous consequences for individuals and the industry long-term. Results suggest a cultural shift in the industry would be necessary to significantly ease dissonant cognitions among individual journalists.