13-Article Text-25-3-10-20200219

JOURNALISM PRACTICE IN AN ERA OF UNGUIDED UTTERANCES: FRAMING OF HATE SPEECH IN SELECTED NIGERIAN NEWSPAPERS 129
JOURNALISM PRACTICE IN AN ERA OF UNGUIDED

UTTERANCES: FRAMING OF HATE SPEECH IN
SELECTED NIGERIAN NEWSPAPERS
BY
ANTHONIA OMENEKE OHIEKU1
SAFINA SANISI SABO
Abstract
This study investigated newspaper framing of hate speech in Nigeria. In doing so, attention was paid to the
sources of hate speech as well as the framing of hate speech using three broad frames namely supportive,
critical and neutral frames. The researcher also focused on three broad areas that often manifest in hate
speeches. They are politics, religion and ethnicity. Content analysis was used for the study while a total of four
newspaper-the Punch, Vanguard, Leadership and Daily Trust were sampled for the study which duration was
three years. The result showed that politicians and their supporters usually make hate speeches most while
newspaper framing of hate speech is determined by the issue involved. Consequently, it was found that while
newspapers are likely to frame political hate speech using a critical frame, a support frame is used to frame
religious hate speech and neutral frame for ethnicity hate speech. Based on the result of this study, the
researcher recommends, among others, that newspapers should adopt critical frame in framing hate speech
relating to ethnicity as the use of neutral frames may divide the country along ethnic line.
Keywords: ethnicity, framing, hate speech, newspaper, politics and religion
Introduction
Speech communication is one of the means through which people create meaning, express
ideas and pass information. As an aspect of verbal communication, speech communication is
a tool through which people exchange ideas. Abdullah (2017) says that speech is the main
means by which people communicate, create community, and promote diversity. Abdullah
adds that the broad rationale for speech communication is probably better understood
regarding its ‘macro' and ‘micro' functions, respectively. Abdullah lists the macro functions
of speech to include: to build community: and to promote and engage with cultural diversity
while the micro rationale includes to define the self, to spread information within and outside
the community, to debate social issues impinging on the affairs of the community and the
world at large. And finally, to bring about individual and group change via interpersonal,
group, institutional, mass, and intercultural communication (Gronbeck et al., 1997: 5 – 10).
When people speak, they are likely to influence the perception, opinion and even attitudes of
those who listen to them. In other words, speech communication could be useful in attitude
change and opinion formation. It is such perceived power of speech that government of
countries are concerned about the nature of utterances that its citizens make. Consequently,
hate speech is severely discouraged.
1
Corresponding author: Anthonia Omeneku Ohieku, Department of Mass Communication, Federal
Polytechnic Nasarawa. Email: toniaaudu100@gmail.com
International Journal of Communication: an Interdisciplinary Journal of Communication Studies, 24, June, 2019
Hate speech is a complicated concept to define. This is largely because there is no

universally accepted definition of hate speech. What is hate speech in one country may be a
good speech in another and vice versa. Article 19 of the Free Word Centre (2015)
corroborates that hate speech as a concept is more emotional such that there is no definition
that has a universal appeal. Even in international law, there is no agreement on what
constitutes hate speech. Although there may not be a generally accepted definition of hate
speech, the underlining assumption is that hate speech connotes negative utterances. It refers
to expressions that have negative implications to an individual or groups. Brown (2017) says
that hate speech can best be described based on the following tripod: (1) it is an expression
(2) it borders any member of category of individuals identified by protected attributes and
(3) involves or is intimately concerns emotions, feelings, or behaviour of hate or hatred. Hate
speech has negative implications on a country's security, peace and progress. This is because
when a person makes a hateful speech against another, it is likely to trigger violence. When
hate speech maligns a person's gender or religion, it is likely to lead to a total breakdown of
law and order. Such a dangerous situation could compromise development and peaceful
coexistence.
The Nigerian government is currently struggling to reduce cases of hate speech in the
country. Although there may have been cases of hate speech in Nigeria in the past, the
coming on board of the Buhari led administration appears to have fuelled many agitations
that are also manifesting in the form of hate speech. For example, there is the agitation for the
restructuring of Nigeria, agitation for resource control in the Niger Delta, agitation for
secession of South-East from Nigeria, among others. There is also the issue of herdsmen-
farmers conflict. The political appointments so far made by presidents Buhari are also heavily
criticized and fuelled issues of hate speech. Nigeria has also experienced cases of quite notice
from northerners against Southerners and Southerners against Northerners. The Federal
Government of Nigeria has since declared hate speech as an act of terrorism. In addition,
there is a new bill by the Nigerian Senate recommending that any person found guilty of any
form of hate speech that leads to loss shall die through hanging if convicted (Ameh, 2018). A
study of media framing of hate is essential because the media can highlight issues in ways
that project setting aspects. Therefore, an understanding of media framing of hate speech in
Nigeria could offer insights regarding the role the media in Nigeria is playing in
peacebuilding and promotion of cohesion. This is more so that studies (e.g., Aliagan, 2015;
Aliagan 2011; Ndaliman & Agbo 2013; Edegoh, Ezeh & Aniebo 2015) show that newspapers
are still real sources of information in Nigeria.
Media framing describes the ways through which the media highlight issues reported.
Iyengar (1990,p. 20) describes the power of framing thus ‘’ framing has been found to exert
powerful effects on judgment and choice. Entman (1993) holds that framing is the selecting
of "some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text,
in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral
evaluation, and treatment recommendation for the item described." For this study, four
broad aspects were considered and used to examine newspaper framing of hate speech in
Nigeria. This includes the sources of stories on hate speech, the framing of religious hate
speech, political hate speech and ethnic hate speech.
Statement of the Problem

In recent times, Nigerian authorities have had to battle with the problem of hate speech
among its citizens. Such hateful utterances are carried through different media including the
newspaper. Although cases of hate speech have continued to feature in Nigeria's national
discourse, there is no corresponding empirical evidence regarding how newspapers are

framing hate speech. Understanding newspaper framing of hate speech within the lenses of
sources of hate speech, religious related hate speech, political related hate speech and
ethnicity related hate speech could provide relevant data regarding the performance of the
media in peace building and national unity, hence the need for this study.
Objectives of the Study

This study sought to determine newspaper framing of hate speech in Nigeria. Specifically, the
study sought to achieve the following:
1. To determine newspaper sources of hate speech stories.
2. To ascertain newspaper framing of religious related hate speech stories.
3. To determine newspaper framing of political related hate speech stories.
4. To investigate newspaper framing of ethnicity-related hate speech stories.
Literature Review
Hate speeches are likely to attract media attention, and thus, likely to circulate faster and
broader. This is, perhaps, because people are more interested in negative speeches than in
positive. The media itself is more interested in carrying negative news than positive news.
Shoemaker and Cohen, (2006) say there is currently no sufficient explanation in literature
why news contents are largely about negative events. Almost on a daily basis, both good and
bad things happen. However, the media appear to focus more on bad events than positive
issues. Consequently, people may make many positive speeches in a day or even every
minute, but the media may carry hate speeches more.
One possible explanation regarding why the media may be reporting more hate
speeches than positive ones is the issue of news values. News values are the guidelines for
selecting news items among the many that take place daily. Nunoo (2016) reveals that the
selection of what to report is fundamental as such will guide journalists to reduce the
complexity of the process of collecting and assembling of news for dissemination. Harcup
and O’Neill (2001, 278–279) say that journalists have to use specific criteria known in
deciding what to include in news contents. Galtung and Ruge (1965) many decades ago
proposed a list of news values that can be used to determine the newsworthiness of news
items. Galtung and Ruge's 12 indicators of news values include frequency, threshold,
unambiguity, meaningfulness, unexpectedness, continuity, compositional balance, elite
nations, elite people, reference to persons and reference to something negative. Based on the
news values as explained by Galtung and Ruge, hate speeches are likely to attract media
attention because they are odd and make reference to people. Prominent persons or groups
often make such speeches. Hate speech has been featured in different media in Nigeria in
recent memory. One of such hate speeches that gained much attention in the media was the
quite notice from Northern youths to Igbo leaving in the area. Part of the quit notice read:
We are hereby placing the Nigerian authorities and the entire nation on notice,
that as from the 1st October 2017, we shall commence the implementation of
visible actions to prove to the whole world that we are no longer part of any
federal union that should do with the Igbos. From that date, active, peaceful and
safe mop-up of all the remnants of the stubborn Igbos that neglect to heed this
quit notice shall commence to eject them from every part of the North finally
(Rabiu, 2017).
The submission above captures the Igbos as a burden to the nation. However, the Southern
part of Nigeria could not take such a hateful utterance for granted as they also responded with
a counter quit notice from Niger Delta agitator who issued a quit notice to Northern and
Yoruba people. One issue that is worth considering here is that hate speech in Nigeria cannot
be separated from the political, ethnic and religious configurations of the country.
Nigeria currently operates a three-tier system of government namely the local, state
and federal levels. The federal government has more powers than the state and the state than
the local government. One of the leading causes of hate speech in Nigeria is power sharing
across the three tiers of government. Gever (2014) says that in some states in Nigeria like
Benue and Kog, there is currently arguments on power rotation among different ethnic
groups. All the different ethnic groups in Nigeria desire to have a sense of belonging. And
Nigeria is a country with many ethnic groups. Ayatse and Akuva (2013) put the number of
ethnic groups in Nigeria at 350 while Dickson and Asua (2016) put it at 250. Whatever the
number is, it is mainly responsible for the struggle for power which often leads to hate
speech from one ethnic group to another. For example, the Niger Delta region has often
blamed the North of using resources from the region for their selfish end. The region also
feels that it is the primary source of revenue for the entire nation. Apart from ethnicity,
religion has also led to some hate speeches. For example, Apostle Suleiman had predicted
that Governor Nasir El-Rufai of Kaduna State was going to die because of the State
government’s decision to regulate religious preaching. The apostle was quoted thus:
I am saying this to the Executive Governor of Kaduna state, Nasir El-Rufai, revoke
this law or die! They will appoint their own who will make it hard for the church but
easy for the mosque. When it comes to the mosque, they give them a very good area
but when it comes to the church, they give bad areas. We are not troublemakers.
Don't trouble us(Ebusor, 2016 para 3).
In addition to religion, politics engender hate speech in Nigeria. Political parties and their
supporters often make hate speeches against their opponents. An excellent example of such
hate speeches with political undertone is that from former president Goodluck Jonathan who
said that Buhari could not remember his phone number but he wanted to change the economy.
Parekh (2006: 214) states, ‘Hate speech expresses, advocates, encourages, promotes, or
incites hatred of a group of individuals distinguished by a particular feature or set of features'
and ‘when hate speech is permitted to be propagated, it encourages a social climate in which
particular groups are denigrated, and their discriminatory treatment is accepted as normal.
There are many of such instances where political gladiators have made one hate speech against the
other.
Hate speech is disastrous to any nation and the role of the media in promoting hate speech
is also less controversial. Arcan (2013) notes that countries of the world such as Rwanda and
Yugoslavia provide good examples concerning how hate speech is made public through the
mass media of communication. Davison (2006) opines that it is easy to communicate hate
speech through the media because of its capacity to mobilize people for mass action. In the
opinion of Arcan (2013), parties such as the Nazi and fascist took advantage of press laws,
urbanisation and mass communication to agitate and attract followers. The bottom line is that
the media have critical roles in the promotion of hate speech.
Some studies have been conducted that are related to hate speech. Systems (2016)
examines the potential influence of political hate speech on youth in Kosovo. The study
focused on young people's perceptions of the meaning of hate speech, where hate speech is
used and by whom, and how hate speech influences young people's feelings and behaviour.
Content analysis was used for the study while data was gathered from six focus groups held
in various regions of Kosovo with young people between the ages of 15 and 29. The result
showed that the focus group participants perceived hate speech regarding expressions or
language that is used to offend, humiliate, or discriminate against an individual or group
mainly on the basis that they are of a different nationality, ethnicity or political affiliation.
Participants also tied hate speech to being offensive, name-calling, jealousy, and conflicts
from the past. The characteristic finding across all six focus groups was that politicians are
the main group of people who use hate speech. This study provided insights into public
perception of the hate speech and its impact but did not examine newspaper framing of it.
Spanje and Vreese (2013) conducted a survey involving a sample from Dutch and
reported that hate speech have a significant effect on voters. Arcan, (2013) investigated
how hate speech interrupt peace using a sample from Turkey. The researcher made use of
qualitative analysis while the result of the study showed that explicit hate speech is ordinary
in Turkish media, not minding ideological or political position, and that it is inimical to the
peaceful coexistence of Turkey.
Also, Sule (2015) did a study wherein he examined how the mass media have been
used as instrument for the promotion of division and reported that mass media channels have
been heavily used to propagate hate and hateful conduct. Adisa and Mohammed (2016) did a
study to ascertain the use of the mass media for division along ethnic, lines and found that
media channels, especially the newspaper have been substantially used to promotion division.
Theoretical Framework
The researcher used the framing theory to articulate this study. This theory was suggested in
1974 by Goffman. In the views of the theorist, people use frames that guide them to attach
meaning to events happening around them. Within the context of the framing theory, the
interpretation package which people use to make meaning about happenings around them are
called frames. However, framing theory, when examined from the perspective of mass
communication, focuses on the angle that media reports project about an issue. In framing,
the attention is paid to the angle projected and not the number of stories (Druckman, 2001;
Bryant & Miron, 2004). In framing, one poorly framed story is assumed to be more powerful
than ten others that were well framed. Therefore, the framing theory was adopted for this
study to determine newspaper reportage of hate speech in Nigeria.
Methodology
Design of the Study: This study adopted content analysis to examine newspaper framing of
hate speech. Content analysis was used because it helped the researcher to study newspaper
contents on hate speech.
The population of the study: The population of this study was made up of all the national
newspapers in Nigeria. There are a total of 28 newspapers circulating in Nigeria
(International Media Newspapers, 2016).
Sample/ Sampling Technique: The sample size of this study was made up of four
newspaper namely: The Punch, the Vanguard, the Leadership and Daily Trust were selected
for this study. These newspapers were selected to ensure equitable representation of the
northern and southern parts of Nigeria. This study covered three years. From June 1st, 2015
to June 1st, 2017. This period was chosen for the study because it marked the time when hate
speeches became most pronounced in Nigeria. The researcher used constructed week to
sample the newspaper issues. This was based on the result of Stempel (1952) who first
reported that twelve issues from two constructed weeks could effectively predict a year.
Therefore, the study made use of four newspapers for a period of three years. Hence a total
of 12 editions of each of the newspapers was selected for three years, thus leading to 48
issues for the four newspapers per a year and 144 issues for the three years.
Table I: Constructed week for the selected newspaper editions.
2015 2016 2017
January 10 18th 26th 13th 19nd 30th
June 1st 8th 29th 12th 15th 27th 4th 18th 27th
rd th th th nd th
August 3 17 26 9 18 24 11th 18th 29th
th th th st th nd
October 11 19 28 1 9 29 10th 22nd 28th
December 15th 17nd 19st 15th 17th 20th 1st 12th 27th
Measurements of Study Variables

Hate Speech:
For this study, hate speech describes any expression that is targeted at a person, or ethnic
group or political party or religious group.
Sources of hate speech

This describes the origin of hate speech stories. The following sources were considered:
Politicians: People who are card-carrying members of political parties.
Religious groups: Sources from religious leaders or their members.
Ethnic groups: Sources that are aligned with ethnic affiliation.
Others: Sources that do not fall under any of the above categories.
The framing of Hate Speech

To measure newspaper framing of hate speech, three broad measurements indices-critical,
supportive and neutral were used.
Supportive frame: This describes newspaper reported that were favourable to the hate
speech.
Critical Frame: This frame describes reports that were against such hate speech.
Neutral: This describes frame that did not support or were critical of hate speech
These three broad frames were then used to measure how newspapers frame hate speeches on
politics, religion and ethnicity.
Unit of Analysis
For this study, the units of analysis were the articles which included news, editorials,
columns, opinions, and letters to the editor. Two coders were randomly selected to do the
coding. The Inter-coder reliability was determined using Holsti’s Intercoder reliability
formula thus:
Where:
M = The number of coding decisions which two coders agree.
N1 & N2 – The number of coding decisions by the first and second coder respectively
The intercoder reliability was
The calculation above yielded 0.84 reliability figure. This calculation was indicated high
reliability. The researcher used simple percentages in the analysis. The results were then
presented in tables.
Result
A total of 144 editions of the newspapers were examined. Out of this number, 91 editions
representing 63% had stories on hate speech. The remaining 53 editions had no stories on
hate speech whatsoever. These 91 editions were examined, and this yielded a total of 207
stories on hate speech. The result is presented below:
Table II: Sources of stories hate speech
Sources of hate speech

Religion- Ethnic-related
Politicians related source source others Total
newspaper Punch Count 26 15 5 6 52
% of
12.6% 7.2% 2.4% 2.9% 25.1%
Total
The Count 32 7 6 4 49
Vanguard % of
15.5% 3.4% 2.9% 1.9% 23.7%
Total
Leadership Count 34 11 10 6 61
% of
16.4% 5.3% 4.8% 2.9% 29.5%
Total
Daily Trust Count 25 9 6 5 45
% of
12.1% 4.3% 2.9% 2.4% 21.7%
Total
Total Count 117 42 27 21 207
% of
56.5% 20.3% 13.0% 10.1% 100.0%
Total
The table above sought to determine sources of stories on hate speech. The result showed that
politicians accounted for more than half of the stories on hate speech followed by religion. To
determine newspaper framing of religiously related hate speeches, the following table was
computed:
Table III: Newspaper framing of religious hate speeches
Frames
Supportive critical Neutral
frame frame frame Total
newspaper Punch Count 26 10 16 52
% of
12.6% 4.8% 7.7% 25.1%
Total
The Count 26 16 7 49
Vanguard % of
12.6% 7.7% 3.4% 23.7%
Total
Leadership Count 18 23 20 61
% of
8.7% 11.1% 9.7% 29.5%
Total
Daily Trust Count 15 11 19 45
% of
7.2% 5.3% 9.2% 21.7%
Total
Total Count 85 60 62 207
% of
41.1% 29.0% 30.0% 100.0%
Total
Table III above sought to determine newspaper framing of religiously related hate speeches.
The result showed that the newspapers studied were mostly supportive of such hate speeches.
This result could be because of the sensitive nature of religion and how Nigerians attach
emotions to religious issues. To ascertain newspaper framing of political hate speeches, the
following table was computed:
Table iv: Newspaper framing of political hate speech

Frames
% of
5.8% 12.6% 6.8% 25.1%
Total
The Count 20 22 7 49
Vanguard % of
9.7% 10.6% 3.4% 23.7%
Total
% of
5.8% 14.5% 9.2% 29.5%
Total
% of
6.3% 8.2% 7.2% 21.7%
Total
% of
27.5% 45.9% 26.6% 100.0%
Total
Table iv above sought to determine newspaper framing of political hate speech. The result
showed that most of the newspaper stories were critical of such hate speeches. To ascertain
newspaper framing of ethnicity-related hate speeches, the following table was computed:
Table V: Newspaper framing of ethnicity-related hate speeches
Frames
% of
8.2% 7.7% 9.2% 25.1%
Total
The Count 15 12 22 49
Vanguard % of
7.2% 5.8% 10.6% 23.7%
Total
% of
6.3% 7.7% 15.5% 29.5%
Total
% of
5.8% 6.8% 9.2% 21.7%
Total
% of
27.5% 28.0% 44.4% 100.0%
Total
Table five above sought to ascertain newspaper framing of ethnicity-related hate speeches.
The findings showed that most of the stories were neutral in their framing of hate speeches.
However, there was a marginal difference between supportive and critical frames.
Discussion of Findings
This study investigated newspaper framing of hate speech in Nigeria. In doing so, attention
was paid to the sources of hate speech as well as the framing of hate speech using three broad
frames namely supportive, critical and neutral frames. The researchers also focused on three
broad areas that often manifest in hate speeches. They are politics, religion and ethnicity. The
result of this study showed that most of the hate speeches had political sources. In other
words, politics is likely to generate hate speech more than any other sphere. The result of this
study is not surprising because of the tension that politics in Nigeria generates. During
political seasons such as election, many political gladiators and their supporters engage in
image building and presentation of themselves in a favourable light. They also engage in
high-level accusations and counter-accusations, thus leading to many hate speeches. The
result of this study is consistent with that of Arcan, (2013) who found that politics is the
most common source of hate speech. The result of this study also revealed that the
newspapers studied mostly used supportive frame to present religious related hate speech but
used critical frame to present political hate speech and neutral frame to present ethnicity-hate
speech. The result of this study is worrying because the direction of newspaper framing of
hate speech is likely to influence public perception and opinion. This assumption is supported
by the study of Spanje and Vreese (2013) and International Foundation for Electoral
Systems (2016). This result has implications on the framing theory as articulated by Goffman
in 1974. Based on the result of this study and the theoretical postulation of framing theory,
the researchers submit that the number of newspaper stories on hate speech are not as
significant as the frames used.
Conclusion/ Recommendations
Based on the result of this study, the researcher concludes that politicians and their
supporters usually make hate speeches most while newspaper framing of hate speech is
determined by the issue involved. Consequently, the researchers conclude that while
newspapers are likely to frame political hate speech using a critical frame, the supportive
frame is used to frame religious hate, and neutral frame for ethnicity hate speech. The
fundamental contribution of this study is that it has provided evidence for understanding
newspaper framing of hate speech. Such an understanding could be useful to communication
researchers, public affairs analysts and journalists. The implication of this result to newspaper
journalism is that it could serve as an eye-opener for print journalists in their framing of hate
speech. Based on the result of this study, the researcher makes the following
recommendations:
1. Newspapers should adopt critical frame in framing hate speech related to ethnicity as
the use of neutral frames may divide the country along ethnic line.
2. There is a need for the use of critical frames in reporting religious hate speech to
discourage public disorder under the guise of religion.
3. Further studies should include broadcast media for better understanding.
References
Abdullah, F. (2017). Speech communication. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/pu
blication/321709404_Speech_Communication
Adisa, R. R. Mohammed, R. (2016). Issues and consequences of newspaper framing on
ethnic conflict: a qualitative study of ethnic group leaders’ conflict frames. Malaysian
Journal of Communication, 32 (2), 294-316.
Aliagan, I (2011). Newspaper readership pattern in Ilorin. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, 3 (5),451-466.
Ameh, G (2018 March 1). Hate speech offenders to die by hanging – Nigeria Senate’s new bill.
Daily Trust. Retrieved from http://dailypost.ng/2018/03/01/hate-speech-offenders-die-
hanging-nigeria-senates-new-bill/
Arcan, H. (2013). Interrupted Social peace: Hate speech in Turkish media. The IAFOR
Journal of Media, Communication and Film, 1 (1), 43- 56.
Ayatse, F., & Akuva, I. (2013). The origin and development of ethnic politics and its
impacts on postcolonial governance in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 9 (17),
178-189
Brown, A.(2017). What is hate speech? Part 1: the myth of hate. Retrieved from
https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/63210/1/Published_manuscript.pdf
Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of
Communication, 54(4), 662–704.
Davison, J. (2006), ‘The Politics of hate: ultranationalist and fundamentalist tactics and
goals,’ Journal of Hate Studies, 5 (1), 37-61.
Druckman, J. (20001). Evaluating framing effects. Journal of Economic Psychology, 91-101.
Ebusor, C (2016). Revoke your law or die – Pastor warns Governor. Retrieved from
http://www.pulse.ng/communities/religion/el-rufai-revoke-your-law-or-die-pastor-
warns-governor-id4803031.html
Edegoh, L. Ezeh, N. & Aniebo, A. (2015). Evaluation of newspaper reading habits of youths
in Anambra State, Nigeria. New Media and Mass Communication,37-63-71.
Entman, R (1993). Education research: Issues and methodology. Ibadan: Wisdom Publisher.
Free Word Centre (2015) ‘Hate speech’ explained a toolkit. Article 19. Free Word Centre.
Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. (1965). The structure of foreign news, Journal of Peace Research
2(1), 6491.
Gronbeck, B. E., McKerrow, R. E., Ehninger, D. & Monroe, A. H. (1997). Principles and
types of speech communication. New York: Longman.
Harcup, Tony, and Deirdre O’Neill. 2001. “What is news? Galtung and Ruge Revisited.”
Journalism Studies, 2 (2), 261–280.
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (2015). The Influence of Hate Speech as a
Political Tool on the Youth of Kosovo. International Foundation for Electoral
Systems.
Iyengar, S. (1990). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 1-15.
Ndaliman, M. & Agbo, M.P. (2013). Newspaper readership level and pattern among
students of tertiary institutions.A study of Federal Polytechnic Bida.pp158-189 In
Okoro, N., Ukonu, M., Ekweme, A., Nwachukwu.C.& Okeke, I. (Eds) African
Council for Communication Education, Nsukka,2013 conference proceedings.
Parekh, B. (2006), ‘Hate speech: Is there a case of banning?’ Public Policy Research, 12, (4),
213-223.
Rabiu, M. (2017June 30).Northern youths give three months quit notice to Igbos. Tribune
Newspapers. Retrieved from http://www.tribuneonlineng.com/northern-youths-give-
3-months-quit-notice-igbos/
Shoemaker, P. J. and Cohen, A. A. (2006). News around the world: Practitioners, content
and the public. Oxford: Routledge
Spanje, J & Vreese, S. (2013). The good, the bad and the voter: The impact of hate speech
prosecution of a politician on electoral support for his party. Party Politics, 1–16.
Stempel, G. H. III (1952). The sample size for classifying subject matter in dailies.
Journalism Quarterly, 29, 333-334.
Sule, R. (2015). Ethno-religious conflicts, mass media and national development: the
northern Nigeria experience (unpublished PhD thesis). University of Jos.

13-Article Text-25-3-10-20200219

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

13-Article Text-25-3-10-20200219

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNALISM PRACTICE IN AN ERA OF UNGUIDED UTTERANCES: FRAMING OF HATE SPEECH IN SELECTED NIGERIAN NEWSPAPERS 129

JOURNALISM PRACTICE IN AN ERA OF UNGUIDED

Keywords: ethnicity, framing, hate speech, newspaper, politics and religion

Hate speech is a complicated concept to define. This is largely because there is no

Statement of the Problem

discourse, there is no corresponding empirical evidence regarding how newspapers are

Objectives of the Study

Measurements of Study Variables

Sources of hate speech

The framing of Hate Speech

Table II: Sources of stories hate speech

Sources of hate speech

Table III: Newspaper framing of religious hate speeches

Table iv: Newspaper framing of political hate speech

Table V: Newspaper framing of ethnicity-related hate speeches

You might also like