Anti-Media Discourse and Violence Against Journalists: Evidence From Chávez’s Venezuela

Abstract

Can political leaders’ anti-media rhetoric increase journalists’ vulnerability to non-state violence? Despite the abundance of anecdotal evidence, research on whether and how politicians’ verbal attacks against the “lying press” and “fake news” lead to non-state violence against journalists is limited. This study makes the case that features of the political landscape where anti-media proponents emerge explain why discourse increases journalists’ vulnerability to attacks. Because anti-media discourse is common in contexts where mechanisms of accountability for non-state violence against the press are already weak and electoral competition is fierce, what politicians say can be particularly consequential. Discourse legitimizes non-state attacks, signals to transgressors that violence will not be prosecuted, and paves the way for electorally motivated violence. I capitalize on case narratives collected by local human rights monitoring organizations and media transcripts to build an original dataset of anti-media messages and non-state attacks against journalists in Venezuela (2002–2013). Using survival and instrumental variable models, I show that politicians’ messages are positively correlated with non-state physical attacks against journalists, that the estimated effect of discourse on violence is largest in highly competitive electoral districts, and that electoral campaigns amplify the degree to which messages increase the incidence of attacks by party loyalists. I also show that the longer politicians sustain anti-media discourse, the more likely it is to increase journalists’ vulnerability to attacks.