Journalists under attack: violence against traditional media and gender-based violence against women journalists

By: FGV Direito Rio

 

• From 28 YouTube videos of traditional media channels, we addressed and elaborated over 4,810 comments to identify how users of this website referred to (1) the press in general; (2) the YouTube channels themselves; (3) the program’s panelists; and (4) journalists – female and male; 
• More than ¼  (25.26%) of the total universe of comments was directed to said characters, that is, 1,215 of the total comments. Regarding the content of the comments, 20.16% (215) of the universe of 1,215 directed towards the characters in this report were complimentary, while 82.30% (1,000) of them contained disapproval, disqualification or offenses to the characters.
• While men were more targeted of mere disagreements, women suffered criticism regarding their appearance and other misogynistic comments. In addition, female journalists have been more targeted in comments criticizing their qualifications, often labeling them as incompetent.

The general objective of this report is to investigate the scenario of violence against journalists in comments on traditional media channels on YouTube. As specific objectives, it seeks to understand whether the nature of the comments is also linked to gender-based violence. We sought to measure, based on the qualitative analysis of comments on videos on the YouTube platform, whether there is a difference between the general comments in relation to gender and race of those who are spokespersons for the news.

Methodology

We analyzed 28 journalistic YouTube videos, posted between February 1 and April 1, 2024, from which 6,557 comments were collected. The criteria for selecting the videos were: (1) the number of comments per video, which should  be at least 30 comments; and, (2) representativeness in the program’s panelists. In this manner, the analysis included programs with panelists who were exclusively female, exclusively male, and mixed regarding gender.

In order to collect program’s panelists that were relevant to the Brazilian public in general, the panels analyzed here refer to some of the main traditional media channels and their programs on YouTube. To collect those with the greatest relevance in the national context, we turned to the Social Blade website, which gave us the 5 traditional media channels with the highest number of subscribers in Brazil. Of these, we selected both full videos from journalistic channels, that is, streaming entire programs, as well as cuts and shorts present on YouTube. 

Look here table with programs,videos and information about benches on YouTube

Of the total group of 6,557 comments, 1,795 were discarded because they represented: (i) responses among users whose content were not linked to an interaction with the video and the characters themselves; and (ii) communicational noise – errors, external links, or others that cannot be classified. After this removal, 4,762 comments remained for in-depth analysis.

For the qualitative analysis, we categorized the comments manually based on the identification of recurring topics. The glossary of this classification is shown in Chart 2 below. We consider the commentaries addressing: the journalists, individually; the panel as a whole; the channel; and, last, the press in general. Some of the comments referenced more than one character, and we treated these as exceptional cases by dividing them as individual comments per content.There were 48 occurrences of this nature. Thus, the results presented in this report are based on the examination of 4,810 comments in total.

In addition, in our categorization of comments, we have established the following topics as exclusionary: Content; Support; and Disagreement. This means that once a comment was tagged in such categories, other topics of analysis could not be tagged. With possible, i.e., non-exclusive, intersections, we have the following categories: Partiality; Incompetence; Irony or Mockery; Insult or Offense; Misogyny or Harassment.. 

Look here table with comment analysis topics.

For the quantitative analysis, we used two main methods to interpret the comments: (i) topic modeling, which allows us to calculate the number of terms found in the comments linked to broader topics; and (ii) toxicity analysis, using a pre-trained model capable of detecting toxic attributes in text data.

Structurally, the report is divided into three sections: (i) "General Overview", with analysis of the general data extracted from the comments section of the videos present in the sample on YouTube; (ii) "Content analysis", in which the topic analyses are structured; and (iii) "Toxicity Analysis", where we explore the results of the toxicity analysis of the comments left on the videos.

Overview

Of the 4,810 comments analyzed in this report, 3,595 were general comments on the content of the videos (74.7%). These comments included user interactions with the topics addressed in the programs, the issuance of opinions, and general participation. As can be seen in Graph 1 below, of the 1,215 comments directed to the characters in this report: 145 went to the press in general, 388 to the program’s panelists, 212 to traditional media outlets, and 469 to journalists. Of the latter group, 176 were women – 5 were racialized – and 293 were men – 11 were racialized.

Graph 1: Total mentions of characters

Source: YouTube | Elaboration: FGV Direito Rio

Graph 1, above, shows that the majority of comments are directed to the panelists, accounting for 32% of the total. In second place, Male Journalists are the ones who receive the most targeted comments, accumulating 24.12%. Those who refer to Channels are 17.45%. For Women Journalists we have 14.5% of comments and, finally, for the Press in General, 11.9%.

It is important to note that, regarding comments directed at men, 85 were in response to a single video and correspond to repeated mentions of journalist Salvador Nogueira specifically. 63 of these comments mention him by name and another 10 allude in a pejorative way to the fact that he works for the newspaper Folha de São Paulo.

 

"The Nerd from Folha watched too many fiction movies, he doesn't understand the urgency of preserving the planet, he thinks that arriving on Mars and creating life there is for tomorrow." 

"I'm glad the interviewee had patience in listening to so many poor questions. The representative of Folha de SP showed himself to be completely clumsy, without sense, without preparation for any debate."

 

These comments are, for the most part, criticism towards the journalist's competence in relation to the interviewee. We also identified comments about their physical characteristics, with an explicitly fatphobic content. 

"The chubby guy is dying to be the new Cortez hahaha"

"Dined the Fat One"

According to Rangel, fatphobia "is used to designate prejudice, stigmatization and aversion encompassed through a structural oppression in society that affects fat people." The devaluation and stigmatization of statements such as those made in the comments presuppose that the fat person is a failure and careless, and therefore unqualified. This logic is connected to the imaginary of the physical inability of the fat body, thus projecting limitations to fat people.

From this, even if most of the comments to the journalist are not related to his appearance, it is possible that he is more the target of criticism due to aesthetic pressure and fatphobia, explicit or not, reiterating that fat people tend to be seen as inferior professionals. 

Content Analysis

Regarding the categorization by topics of the comments directed to the characters in this report, the most present theme in the collection was the accusation of bias and distrust, with 314 comments, followed by content with insults and offenses that correspond to 267 comments. In third place is support for the characters, with 245 comments, followed by disagreement, with 218 comments, irony or mockery with 118 comments, accusations of incompetence with 116 comments and, finally, speeches with a tone of misogyny or harassment addressing journalist women, with 30 comments. 

Graph 2: Total comments by category

• Breaking down the overall data in relation to gender, allegations of bias are the most recurrent, with 314 comments on videos in total. Of these, 104 were directed to male journalists, while 67 to women. Insult/offense comes in second with 267 in total. Male journalists racked up 67 offensive comments, compared to 36 received by women; 
• Support is the third most frequent category, with 245 comments in total. Male journalists racked up 52 comments in their favor, while women only 36. Among the comments that resort to irony or mockery to attack journalists are 168 of the totals, 53 of them directed at men – with attention to the case of Salvador Nogueira, previously mentioned – as opposed to 31 directed at women; 
• In the category of comments with mere disagreement, men accumulated 84 comments while women received only 28. Finally, in the category of incompetence, women are more often referred to in comments that disqualify them, belittle them and put their abilities in dispute. There are 30 comments directed at female journalists, suggesting incompetence in relation to 25 directed at men;

 

Graph 3: Percentage of comments by topic for each character

 

Source: YouTube | Elaboration: FGV Direito Rio

Support

The support category was evaluated in order to verify which characters – whether they were channels, panels, press or journalists – received comments in their favor. In this sense, we sought to verify whether there was any predominance in relation to gender.

• From the qualitative analysis of the comments, it was possible to observe the following distribution: 245 (20%) supports and compliments, 128 of which were directed only to the panels, 88 to journalists in general (52 men and 36 women) and 4 to the press in general.
• In this sense, it is possible to infer that the highest number of compliments refers to male journalists, who received 52 comments of support out of the total messages directed to journalists in general. The lower support directed at women journalists signals a trend of differentiated appreciation based on gender, which reflects historically unequal dynamics of recognition and professional visibility.

"Congratulations to this journalism, courageous and firm in acknowledging the guilt of the coup plotter" 

"Congratulations to all participants. Damn, you speak, my words, free the hostages. After the release of all the hostages, we will have peace."

"Congratulations to today's commentators! Excellent comments, extremely pertinent, current and accurate as to the reality of the moment on Lula's comment on the war between Israel and Hamas."

• The comments cited above exemplify the nature of the support received, demonstrating an appreciation of attributes such as courage and assertiveness in journalism, as well as the alignment between analysts' comments and the public's perspectives. Historically, such attributes have been associated with masculine stereotypes of leadership and authority, which in turn potentially influence public perception and the way they express admiration and recognition.

Disagreement

Regarding disagreement, comments that only disagreed with the opinions conveyed by the characters in the analysis were evaluated. In this sense, there is no higher value judgment, but only a comment that does not agree with what was said.

• According to the qualitative analysis, we observed 218 (18%) disagreements, of which 112 were for journalists (84 for men and 28 for women), 32 for channels, 65 for the panels and 13 for the press in general.
• The predominance of dissent or rejection prevails for men, but they are mostly destined for the caucuses, which are largely mixed (211) and, secondly, composed only of women (5).

"Dear Salvador Nogueira: you are on this program as an interviewer, not as a debater. In any case, in a debate you have to let the other person speak, to complete his argument. That conversation in the second block bordered on embarrassment." 

"Jewels ????? Bolsonaro: 'I want my share in money!' 

"Josiah doesn't know that the U.N. doesn't consider retaliatory actions by citizens whose country is occupied by an aggressor country to be terrorism."

• Data on disagreement may also reflect gender dynamics present in society, where male voices often can be challenged or questioned publicly, since they are in greater evidence or occupy positions perceived as more authoritative. 
• Paradoxically, they may also indicate that women journalists are less subjected to open criticism or direct disagreement, which does not necessarily reflect greater agreement with their opinions. This could be associated with a cultural tendency to a less direct confrontation with women in public spaces on their opinions, which can also be seen as a form of marginalization or invisibilization of their perspectives.
• In addition, female journalists are specifically referred to in comments about their appearances, sometimes with sexual content, as well as offenses with a misogynistic tone, as we will see in a topic dedicated to the subject. 

Partiality

 

This group of comments encompasses those who accuse the characters in this report of having their speech or news influenced by their political-ideological preference. 

• A total of 424 (34.90%) biased comments were found, of which 171 were directed to journalists – 67 to women journalists and 104 to male journalists; 92 for channels, 70 for the panels and 91 for the press. 
• This type of comment uses two main argumentative axis: the first of them states that the characters are ideologically aligned with Lula/PT/left or with Bolsonarism/extreme right, or with another ideological framework. 
• The second resorts to questions about the influence of economic groups on the content conveyed by traditional media channels, suggesting a lack of intellectual independence. 

 

"And which side are you on? You are lackeys of Lula, who supports Maduro!" (directed at the panelists)

"These are nothing more than Lula's electoral cables, making waves of journalists" (directed at the panelists)

"Hey Monica, what are you feeling with everything Bolsonaro is going through lol" (directed to Monica Bergamo)

"It seems to me that it makes me laugh $$$ went back to uol's account!" (directed at UOLl)

"The interview was good. The big problem is the "BUDGET CAGALHÃES"! This little woman is disgusting and unpalatable! I miss Augusto Nunes at the helm of Roda Viva! These militants, disguised as journalists or journalists, who succeeded him, turned the "living wheel" into a "dead wheel"! R.I.P. roda viva R.I.P. TV Cultura" (directed to Vera Magalhães)

• The indictment comments exemplified above are indicative of public skepticism about the integrity of news coverage. They may also reflect a broader political polarization in society, which infiltrated the perception of neutrality and objectivity in the media. The reference to journalists as "lackeys" or "electoral cables" denotes a perception that media professionals are at the service of political interests, rather than committing to ethical and impartial journalism.
• In qualitative terms, it is important to note that women journalists are specifically targeted in comments that go beyond professional criticism, entering the territory of personal insult, as illustrated in the comment directed at Vera Magalhães. This trend suggests that the perception of bias can be exacerbated by gender stereotypes, where women journalists face not only the challenge of being seen as biased, but also personal attacks that question their professional credibility, integrity and value as individuals.

Insult or offense

This category sought to collect comments that presented some kind of offensive quality, in order to insult the characters seen in the content of the videos.

• In the context of comments that had some type of insult or offense, 267 (21%) messages with insult/offense could be observed, 103 for journalists, 67 for men and 36 for women, 64 to channels, 65 to panels, 48 to the press in general. Regarding the panels, the majority were mixed panels (242), followed by male panels (20).

• The use of derogatory terms such as "garbage" and other pejorative expressions denotes the propagation of a climate of intolerance and contempt for journalistic work. 

"Hypocrites"

"CNN GARBAGE"

"Fabiola is terrible, I feel the bad in her" (directed to Fabiola Cidral")

• In our qualitative analysis, we also identified that offenses directed at female journalists were especially problematic, often characterized by a gender dimension in the choice of offenses. 

"This lacradora must smoke a lot of marijuana" 

"Is this journalist stupid or is she taking a cram school? Lula's lawsuits were not annulled, they could not prove anything."

• Some comments also contained elements of racial and aesthetic discrimination, attacking journalists for physical characteristics or insinuating racial prejudice.

"That half-black, half-white woman on the panel is so boring damn"

• Such insults reflect not only the hostility climate in online discussion spaces, but may also reflect a pattern of contempt for female professionals who are visible and active in traditionally male-dominated fields.

Irony or mockery

The category makes use of linguistic resources that seek to ridicule the journalist, the press or the channel. In the analysis of these comments, it is possible to verify the use of emojis as a way to add an even more ironic tone to the writing.

• Regarding comments that bring some type of irony or mockery, it was possible to observe that 168 (14%) comments contained some type of irony/mockery, 84 for journalists in general, 31 for women and 53 for men, 28 for channels, 42 for panels and 16 for the general press.

"🤑🤑🤑🤑Page cleans the bad guy clean, it's disgusting🤑🤑🤑"

" 😂 Scared Left? Axis of Evil 🤣 "

"THE HYPOCRITICAL, LYING, MILITANT PRESS of lule DOES NOT TIRE OF BEING EMBARRASSED 🤣🤣🤣🤣, THEY ARE DESPERATE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT FIND ANYTHING from bolsonaro, 😂😂😂😂 Only DISINFORMATION in the ATROPHIED MIND of the DONKEYS with SO MUCH LIES 😂😂😂😂"

"Good to see Gleiser hit back at hegemonic 'know-it-all' 😂 journalism"

• The examples cited include emojis, which work as a visual reinforcement of the ironic tone, enhancing the effect of mockery. They can be used to ridicule, for example, the – supposed - bias or incompetence of the press, as in the comment that associates the media with a posture of cleaning up the bad guy, using emojis that suggest a relationship with money.
• The use of emojis and phrases that ridicule entire groups, as in the example that refers to political opponents pejoratively, underlines the division and polarization present in public discourse. 
• The choice of terms such as "hypocritical press" and "militant liar" reflects the possible wear and tear of traditional media, dialoguing with the accusation of bias.

Incompetence

 

The main objective of this category is to identify comments that have the intention of delegitimizing the character as a professional, questioning her aptitude for the exercise of journalism.

• 117 (9.63%) reviews were classified into this category. Within this universe, 55 were directed to journalists – 25 to male journalists, 30 to women journalists –, 5 to channels, 52 to panels and 5 to the press in general.
• The distribution may reflect a gender bias in perceptions of competence in journalism, where women journalists may be subjected to harsher scrutiny and more frequent questioning of their skills. 
• In our qualitative analysis, we identified that there are several linguistic resources mobilized to affirm that the characters do not have the necessary competence to convey information or make a journalistic analysis. Among the most recurrent are those that suggest low cognitive aptitude or incorrect information. There is also emphasis on comments that suggest a lack of preparation for the profession. 

"The reporter's questions at the beginning are so childish, so obvious, so answer-directed... That I won't watch the obvious answer... I want Boçal arrested, but I don't want to see a report made for children... Not even with Artificial Intelligence can she ask smarter questions?" (directed at the female journalist)

 

"Incompetent journalism calls the minister to speak ill of the previous government, this is the evil of the left, regrettably, where are the proposals for progress for the country, instead of looking in the rearview mirror, the guy just lied shamelessly, it seemed like agreed questions." (directed at the panel)

 

• As an example of women being questioned more about their competence than men, we can highlight the first comment presented above: the message, in addition to criticizing the intelligence of a female journalist's questions, questions her competence and also uses language that suggests condescension, qualifying her questions as "childish" and "obvious".

Misogyny or harassment 

 

The category Misogyny or harassment aims to measure the specific insult directed at women, whose content is misogynistic. In this sense, harassment, which by many may not be considered an insult, is included and also makes up this type of content. 

• Here we found 30 (2.47%) comments containing misogynistic content. None directed at a racialized journalist, despite there being a racist comment. 28 comments (2.30%) were directed to female journalists, one to the channel, as it offends the program and the channel's choices, and another to women on the bench in general. 
• Although the numbers are not high, there is gravitas in this type of content: the comments target the quality of the program when presented by women.

 

"Definitely, these journalists are gossips who only want to hear what suits them."

"Pussy Program!! kkk"

 

• The category also includes qualifiers that serve to degrade journalists for being women and may include vexatious or accusatory nicknames. 
• In addition, we also consider the call for the silencing of journalists as a comment with a misogynistic bias. 

"Verba should keep quiet and let it run. When she talks, it makes you want to look for another channel."

"I love it when Madeleine Lacsko participates, I skip everything she says and then I'm well informed in half the time"

• Misogyny can also come in the form of supposed praise. Such actions cease to be complimentary when, in addition to being made in the workplace, they are said or written by unknown men, and, in the case of journalists, with the same disqualifying objective mentioned above. These comments take the focus away from the content said or presented by them.
• Although they seem like compliments, they constitute misogyny if they reduce the journalist to her physical appearance or insinuate that her value is linked to sexual attributes rather than her professional skills. For example, comments that focus on a journalist's beauty or body distract from their journalistic content and serve to objectify her.

 

"Fabiola, in addition to being intelligent, is beautiful"

TELL THIS JOURNALIST TO SAY SOME BAD WORDS, SHE WAS VERY SEX(sic) CURSING ... 

 

• There is another type of comment that, in addition to not trying to disguise itself as a compliment, has the explicit objective of sexualizing journalists. Some users even make comments about parts of the body of journalists culturally understood as erogenous. The objective of this type of speech is to remove the woman from the place of a professional in her area and place her as a sexual object.

 

"That girl has some warmness in the bed, it must be a rocket."

"Journalist Paola Deodoro (Marie Claire magazine) is wearing a blouse with a discreet neckline, but that lets you see that her breasts are beautiful. I hope they're natural and not silicone kkklllkkk(sic)"

• Finally, a comment that combines misogyny and racism was found in the research clipping. In this case, the journalist is compared to a cartoon character because of her curly hair which, in itself, is seen by the research as an attempt to make her seem inferior. 

"FAbiola simpson woman kk just like ..."

• Toxicity analysis

For toxicity analysis, we applied the Detoxify model, a tool trained to discern toxic attributes present in texts. The score assigned by this model to the content detected as toxic varies on a scale of 0 to 1, with 0 corresponding to comments devoid of toxicity and 1 to comments of high toxicity. The cut-off line for qualifying a comment as toxic was set at a level higher than 0.6. 

• The distribution of toxic comments revealed 274 comments with toxicity indices equal to or greater than 0.9, characterizing high toxicity in the total debate. Additionally, 167 comments were scored between 0.8 and 0.89, 141 between 0.7 and 0.79, and 125 between 0.6 and 0.69. 
•  Graph 4 below shows the number of comments and the incidence of toxicity identified, segmented by type of caucus (mixed, female, male) in a context of analysis of journalistic channels. 

 

Graph 4: Toxicity in comments from news channels by type of Panel

 

Source: YouTube | Elaboration: FGV Direito Rio

• We observed that, for the mixed panels, 3,702 non-toxic comments were recorded in contrast to 600 toxic. The women's panels had 329 non-toxic comments against 88 toxic. The men's panels, although with lower numbers in absolute terms, had 25 non-toxic comments and 19 toxic comments.
• Although less frequent, toxic comments still represent a relevant portion of the total directed at the men's panels. As seen in Graph 4 above, analyzing the proportion of toxic comments in relation to the total number of comments received by the caucus, it is higher when the program is led only by men.
• In the gender-specific assessment of the journalist (Graph 4, below), we observed that of the comments directed at women, 151 (87.3%) were considered non-toxic and 22 (12.7%) as toxic. On the other hand, comments directed at male journalists indicate that 233 (83.5%) were non-toxic and 46 (16.5%) toxic.

 

Graph 5: Toxicity in comments by journalists' gender

 

Source: YouTube | Elaboration: FGV Direito Rio

• From these data, it is possible to infer that, although a higher percentage of toxic comments are directed at male journalists, the percentage difference is not substantial in relation to women. However, considering the big picture, the data analyzed show that regardless of gender, people who practice the profession are subject to receiving toxic comments, which, depending on the severity and nature, can have a significant psychological and career impact. 

Figure 1: Word Cloud for Toxicity in Comments Directed at Male Journalists

 

Source: YouTube | Elaboration: FGV Direito Rio

 

• In the word cloud with toxic comments directed at male journalists (Figure 1), we observed a variety of offensive terms, such as "liar," "shame," "corruption," "journalist," and "left." Such words underscore the accusations of media bias and indicate the effects of a polarized discussion, with accusations of falsehood and corruption associated with the press, as well as terms that indicate a possible alignment or accusation of political bias.
• Terms such as "Bolsonaristas" and proper names of public figures appear prominently, which suggests that these individuals are central to the comments analyzed. The presence of negative and pejorative words reflects a toxic and confrontational environment, where the figure of the male journalist seems to be at the center of heated debates and criticism. Some expressions used may even cross the line of constructive discourse and enter the territory of insult or disqualification.

Figure 2: Word Cloud for Toxicity in Comments Directed at Women Journalists

 

Source: YouTube | Elaboration: FGV Direito Rio

 

• The word cloud in Figure 2 above, about comments directed at women journalists, highlights a variety of terms that appear to focus on criticism, personal attribution, and job performance issues. Words such as "embarrassing," "beautiful," "terrible," "excellent," and "journalist" come to the fore, suggesting a mix of negative and positive feedback. It is necessary to highlight, however, the sexist connotation in the way some of these words were used in the comments analyzed in depth. 
• The key feature is that women journalists are subjected to a wide range of judgments based not only on their professional performance, but also on perceptions and expectations based on gender stereotypes. The presence of terms such as "beautiful" and "program," along with pejorative and diminutive terms, reinforces the idea that journalists' appearance often becomes an undue focus of attention, diverting from the content of their journalistic work.

 

Elaborated by:

This report was written by the Program of Diversity & Inclusion of FGV Direito Rio.

Authorship:

Yasmin Curzi (Professor at FGV Direito Rio, Coordinator of the Diversity & Inclusion Program and the "Media and Democracy" Project at the Law School)

Carolina Peterli (Researcher of the Diversity & Inclusion Program at FGV Direito Rio/ Project "Media and Democracy")

Fernanda Gomes (Researcher of the Diversity & Inclusion Program at FGV Direito Rio/ Project "Media and Democracy")

Giullia Thomaz (Researcher at the Center for Technology and Society at FGV Direito Rio/ Project "Media and Democracy")

Hana Mesquita (Researcher of the Diversity & Inclusion Program at FGV Direito Rio/ Project "Media and Democracy")

Iris Rosa (Researcher of the Diversity & Inclusion Program at FGV Direito Rio/ Project "Media and Democracy")

Isabella Markendorf Marins (Researcher of the Diversity & Inclusion Program at FGV Direito Rio/ Project "Media and Democracy")

Lorena Abbas (Researcher of the Diversity & Inclusion Program at FGV Direito Rio/ Project "Media and Democracy")

Camila Lopes (Researcher at the Center for Technology and Society at FGV Direito Rio)