Journalists’ perspectives on the presence of hate speech in Italian local news media: counter-hate speech strategies and risks

Rizzuto starts from the idea that the Italian media system risks becoming a “hate factory”, driven by platform logics that favor divisive, emotional content. The introduction combines literature on social media, polarization and disinformation with the definition of hate speech from ECRI (2015). It also draws on research on digital harassment of journalists, especially women. The author argues that platforms alone do not explain the problem. Political actors and journalists share responsibility, and the commercial and “infotainment” logic of Italian journalism, dominant since the 1990s, also contributes.

The three main questions of the paper concern:

1. How social media are understood and used in local news practice and in relation to audiences

2. The link between platform benefits and hate speech, its impact on professionals and the role of gender

3. The counteractions, whether they are institutional or individual, and whether European and Italian laws are considered adequate

The study uses 10 semi-structured interviews with local journalists (five men, five women, aged 26-61, with 5-35 years of experience) from four newspapers, five TV broadcasters and one freelancer, all working for regional commercial outlets not affiliated with national groups. Journalists describe social media as structural to their work, used through both institutional and personal accounts for sourcing, verification, dissemination and audience contact. They see social media as ambivalent. They value the proximity to readers and the new sources, but they see virality, speed and emotional impact displacing verification, depth and context. Older journalists tend to feel “usurped”, while those born after 1980 simply adapted.

Most interviewees refer that they had experienced hate speech on both institutional and personal accounts, usually triggered by disagreement with a story, and describe it as having increased. Online attacks can spill into the private sphere and into offline intimidation. Journalists report self-censorship, with some investigations left “in the drawer”, driven by fear of attacks, lawsuits, a lack of institutional protection, economic precarity, and even the fear of being penalized by platform algorithms.

Three of the five women interviewed refer they had received sexist comments, and two men had witnessed attacks on female colleagues. Women's attacks mix sexist insults, threats against their private lives, professional delegitimization and political accusations, whereas men reported more ideological or political abuse. The author reads this as a strategy that targets “the very idea of a woman in a position of power”.

Newsrooms rarely have protocols, so journalists decide individually whether to ignore, respond to, delete or report abuse, sometimes involving colleagues and press freedom organizations. European instruments such as the Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (now integrated into the Digital Services Act) are seen as sound in principle but weak in enforcement. In Italy, there are no specific binding rules on online hate speech, and general criminal provisions, such as those on incitement to hatred (Art. 604-bis) and aggravated defamation (Art. 595), predate social media. Interviewees consider the existing tools too slow and sometimes undermined by politicians' own hostile rhetoric. They are particularly concerned about lawsuits: 132 legal actions against 290 journalists were documented in 2022-2024, 56% brought by public institutions. Their proposals include a social media manager in each newsroom, faster removal of threatening content, more severe court decisions, protection programmes and psychological support, transparent platform moderation, and above all cultural change.

Rizzuto concludes that the combination of platform logic, economic fragility, political hostility and legal pressure leaves local journalists exposed and often alone. This reduces time for investigation, increases the risk of self-censorship and constrains press freedom, particularly in areas at risk of becoming information deserts.