“When One Finger Picks Oil, It Reaches Others”: An Examination of Nigerian Journalists’ Perspective on Motivations for Online Harassment

ABSTRACT

Online harassment of journalists is increasingly becoming a global phenomenon. Many attempts have been made to investigate the prevalence of the phenomenon. Unfortunately, findings prove that online harassment of journalists is indeed on the rise. What is lacking, so far, in the literature is an inquiry conducted from the perspective of journalists on why they are targeted. This study attempts to shine a light on this question. This we did by examining Nigerian journalists’ perceived motivations for the online harassment that they experience and their suggested ways of controlling the phenomenon. Through online and face-to-face semistructured interviews of 30 journalists in Nigeria, we show that journalists in Nigeria believe that audience perceived journalistic wrongdoing and unethical behaviour, and polarization of politics in Nigeria are the chief reasons their audience harass them online. We further uncover that journalists suggested preventative measures, such as media sensitization campaigns about online harassment and political polarization, procedural, and prosecutorial measures such as improved security, ensuring adequate punishment for offenders, provision of security and enacting safety laws for journalists as avenues through which online harassment of journalists can be controlled. We then delineate the practical implications of the study.

KEYWORDS:

• Digital journalism
• hate speech
• mob censorship
• networked harassment
• online harassment

Introduction

Online harassment of journalists, like in other parts of the globe, is not new in Nigeria. It has been around in some form since the diffusion of social media. Online harassment is a form of intentional bullying and intimidation that affects how journalists act. This includes the ability to express themselves free from fear of persecution or retribution. Online harassment of journalists is recorded, catalogued and condemned (Le Cam, Pereira, and Ruellan 2021). The experience is associated with depression, anxiety, stress and occupational dysfunction (Shah et al. 2024; Zviyita and Mare 2024). It is the subject of many studies in North America, Central America, the Middle East, Asia, Europe and Africa (Benítez 2017; Frère 2015; González de Bustamante and Relly 2016; Ogbondah 1991). However, this study evaluates motivations and suggested solutions to hostilities towards journalists and their institution by journalists in Nigeria.

Many attempts have been made to investigate the prevalence of online harassment. Unfortunately, findings (Uwalaka and Amadi 2023; Uwalaka et al. 2023) prove that online harassment of journalists is indeed on the rise. What is lacking, so far, in the literature is an inquiry conducted from the perspective of journalists on why they are targeted. This study attempts to shine a light on this question. This we did by examining Nigerian journalists’ perceived motivations for the online harassment that they experience and their suggested ways of controlling the phenomenon.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists data, journalists in the US faced unprecedented attacks in 2020 as many journalists were arrested or criminally charged as well as assaulted in many US cities in relation to their reporting (Jacobsen 2020). Similarly, in Europe, more journalists are facing dangerous attacks (physical and online). Attacks on journalists doubled between 2019 and 2021, with about 33 attacks recorded in 2019 compared to 51 attacks in 2020 and 78 in 2021 (Council of Europe 2022). In the last decade, data show that at least 1059 journalists have been murdered and 387 were arbitrarily detained (Reporters Without Borders 2022). Reporters Without Borders’ report states that the impunity rate for crimes against journalists is still around 90%. Threats and hatred against journalists thrive on social media (Reporters Without Borders 2022). These concerns about the safety of journalists have forced the Committee to Protect Journalists to compile a blow-by-blow guide to journalists on how to mitigate online and physical harassment.

Studies have commenced evaluating the presence of online harassment of journalists, and female journalists as well as those from minority groups (Holton et al. 2023; Hughes and Márquez-Ramírez 2018; Lewis, Zamith, and Coddington 2020; Löfgren Nilsson and Örnebring 2016; Posetti 2018; Posetti et al. 2021; Posetti and Storm 2018). Little is known of the perceived motivations for the online harassment of journalists from the perspective of journalists. Understanding what journalists think is responsible for the online harassment that they experience will deepen our understanding of this phenomenon. The knowledge gained from this study will help us draw both theoretical and practical implications. Understanding what journalists believe lead their audience to harass them online will help us compare their suggestions to that of their audience as captured in Uwalaka et al. (2023). This will also help us recommend remedial actions to mitigate the situation.

To assess the perceived motivation for online harassment of journalists, we used Martin’s (2018) analytical framework, such as creating awareness (promotional measures), digital safety and security (preventative measures), and those that aim to combat online harassment or seek remedies for its impact (procedural and prosecutorial measures). Through these analytical frameworks, this study extends the journalism literature by highlighting what journalists perceived as motivations for the online harassment that they are experiencing and their suggested solutions on how to control the phenomenon.

From the foregoing, this study attempts to understand the perceived motivations for the hostilities toward the press from the perspective of media professionals and their suggested solutions on how to control online harassments. To achieve the above stated aim, this study asked the following questions:

1. What is the online harassment experience, or lack thereof, of Nigerian journalists?

2. What motivations do journalists ascribe to individuals who harass them in the cyberspace?

3. What solutions do journalists proffer for controlling online harassment of media professionals?

Literature review

Motivations for online harassment

Scholars that examine online harassment of journalists have utilized a variety of definitions to discuss the phenomenon. Although a consensus is lacking on how to define online harassment of journalists, two terms have consistently remained strong—harassment and attacks (Miller and Lewis 2022; Stahel and Schoen 2020). There is relative agreement in the literature that harassment relates to unwanted behaviours against the press. Miller (2023) defined harassment as unwanted abusive behaviours towards the press. This definition classifies both violent and non-violent unwanted behaviour as harassment. This is crucial for this study as it concerns online engagements that were unwanted and abusive towards the journalists but perpetrated by the audience.

Online harassment is seen as “threat or other offensive behaviour sent online” or “spreading of rumour online” (Marwick 2021, 2). The broadness of the definition suggests that anything within the continuum of online harassment, from name calling to persistent serious abuse, could be seen as harassment. Holton et al. (2023) and Marwick (2023) have furthered our understanding with taxonomies of online harassment. For example, Marwick (2023) used different typologies to distinguish between dyadic harassment (that is, when one person harasses another such as stalking or sexual violence), normalized harassment (in which name calling or insults are common in online spaces like networked gaming), networked harassment (in which an individual is harassed by a group of people connected by social media) and the more nebulous interpersonal situations. Holton et al. (2023) categorized online harassment of journalists into three distinct forms. Acute harassment, which designates general verbal abuse; it is spontaneous and stops almost at the post. Chronic harassments are harassments towards a journalist sustained from one social media user or group of users over a period. Escalatory harassment is more personalized and manifests in direct threats. This form of harassment moves from acute or chronic forms of harassment to direct threats against a journalist or news organization.

There are many other types of online harassment beside those highlighted. These include flaming, that is “the hostile expression of strong emotions and feelings” (Lea et al. 1992, 90); mob censorship, a “bottom-up citizen vigilantism aimed at disciplining and silencing the press” (Waisbord 2020a, 1031); trolling (Waisbord 2020b); hate speech, that is statements that attack, intimidate denigrate others because of their religion, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics that define the group (Obermaier, Hofbauer, and Reinemann 2018, 503) or “expression of hatred or degrading attitude towards a collective” (Hawdon, Oksanen, and Räsänen 2017, 254). Morally motivated networked harassment happens when a member of an online community accuses an individual of violating the network’s moral norms and the accusation is “amplified by a highly networked node, triggering moral outrage throughout the network and leading to the sending of harassing messages to the individual” (Marwick 2021, 2). Acute, dyadic, normalized, interpersonal harassments and flaming are usually individual-based whereas mob censorship, hate speech, chronic, escalatory, and networked harassments are group-based, as many in an online community target a journalist or groups of journalists. The slight differences in the definitions and explanations of these different online harassments point inadvertently to some of the motivations that inform these harassments.

It has been argued that harassment of journalists happens for three related motives, “political motivation, accessibility to the press, and identity of journalists” (Miller 2023, 10). The first is political; that is, when the perpetrators use online harassment as a political strategy. This political strategy could manifest in a norm violation. In many cases, an accusation of a norm violation spreads through a network whose members share a moral or political basis for the justification of the harassment (Lewis, Zamith, and Coddington 2020, 2021; Marwick 2021, 2023). In his typologies, Nerone (1994) highlighted this type of motivation as “violence against ideas”. Also, “digital hate squad” (Posetti 2018, 109) mobilized by political parties, organizations and governments are often recorded as censoring and effectively silencing critical commentary (Daniels 2021). Political motivation is less studied. As a result, there is a need for further studies in this area to extend our understanding of the motivations for harassment.

The second is personal vengeance, which is where the perpetrators may attack because of a personal grudge or view. In this instance, the perpetrators of the attacks may not like what a journalist published, they may be racists or misogynists whose objective is to silence journalists whose ethnicity or sexual orientation they do not like (Daniels 2021; Henrichsen and Shelton 2022). Nerone’s (1994) typologies of violence against the press distinguishes between violence against groups, violence against ideas, violence among individuals, and violence against institutions. According to him, violence against a group refers to harassment and violence against groups whose bases are ethical/racial and gendered. Recent studies have highlighted examples of how online harassment is perpetrated against women and minorities. The majority of the studies that evaluated online harassment of journalist around the world found that online and offline harassment of journalists are mostly gendered and that women and people of colour are targeted the most (Holton et al. 2023).

Studies have shown a greater correlation between gender and race and the likelihood of experiencing online harassment. There is compelling evidence that although all journalists face criticism from the public, the intersectionality of gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity make it worse. This means that online harassment is at its worst when the journalist is female, queer and a person of colour (Blumell and Mulupi 2021; Claesson 2023; Everbach 2018; Gardiner 2018; Martin 2018). It has been uncovered that “Black, Indigenous, Jewish, Arab, Lesbian, women experience both the highest rates and most severe impacts of online violence” (Posetti et al. 2021, 12).

The third motivation for online harassment of journalists is populist sentiments. It has been noted that three main factors contribute to online harassment of journalists in the USA. These factors include: “easy public access to journalists, the presence of toxic internet right-wing and far-right cultures, and populist demonization of the mainstream press” (Waisbord 2020a, 1037). In terms of politics, democratic countries around the globe are increasingly seeing the rise of populist leaders. This move has seen the rise of misogyny and denigration of journalists (Carlson and Witt 2020; Posetti et al. 2021). This rise in populist leaders had led to an increased harassment through “trumpian vitriols” (Carlson, Robinson, and Lewis 2021; Miller 2023; Waisbord 2020a). Studies have also uncovered that beyond the USA, populist leaders have led to the demonization of journalists around the world. A study notes that “this reflects the increase in politically motivated attacks on journalists around the world” (Posetti et al. 2021, 28). Crucially in their global study, over one in three journalists identified populist political actors as cardinal sources of online attacks (Posetti et al. 2021). In Nigeria, protest movements such as the Occupy Nigeria and EndSARS protests have resulted in some forms of harassment of journalists in Nigeria (Uwalaka and Watkins 2018; Uwalaka 2020).

Although political actors have been revealed as critical sources of harassment and attacks, in many instances, they are just a spark in a larger trend of delegitimization of journalists. These harassment and flaming attacks are used to demonize and delegitimize the press in ways that undermine their accountability, discredits them professionally and ultimately erodes trust in facts (Miller 2023). This “rhetoric bolsters and expands the narrative that reporters are not to be trusted and that they dwell in shams meant to dupe an innocent public” (Carlson, Robinson, and Lewis 2021, 14). Some of the critical views and criticisms that ended up leading to reported harassment of journalists in Africa are objective-based issues including brown envelope syndrome or soli, ownership of the media organizations and perceived elitist posture of the journalists (Asomah 2022; Mabweazara, Muneri, and Ndlovu 2020; Skjerdal 2018). These suspicions gradually gravitate to intense disagreement with the press and, in some cases, graduate to online and offline harassment of journalists.

A lot of the already published studies about online harassment and the motivations for such behaviour looked at either the populist attacks on the media or personal vengeance or violence against a group. However, not much has been written about political strategy as a motivation. This study extends the literature not only in that area but also on suggested solutions to control the situation.

One key area in online harassment literature that has garnered less attention is in delineating ways of controlling online harassment of journalists. Martin (2018) analysed the gender-specific digital safety initiatives proposed for female journalists by international anti-violence projects. Based on her analysis, she developed an analytical framework, in which she noted that many online harassment safety guidelines were heavy on strategy of care, in that their development requires journalists to listen and raise awareness of women’s anti-violence needs. She distinguished these guidelines into promotional, preventative, procedural, and prosecutorial measures (Martin 2018, 83). Promotional measures are those guides that try to create awareness of online harassment of female journalists. Preventative measures are guides or studies that aim to ensure digital safety and security of female journalists. Many studies (Antunovic 2019; Benítez 2017; Everbach 2018; Ferrier and Garud-Patkar 2018) that examined online harassment could be classified as not only looking at female journalists but also reporting on promotional and preventative measures.

Procedural and prosecutorial measures are studies and guides that attempt to combat online harassment of journalists or seeking remedies for the impact of online harassment of journalists. This usually brings journalists into “rights-based debates with employers, state, judicial actors, and publishing platforms” (Martin 2018, 83). This analytical framework was adopted for this study.

The Nigerian press and harassment experiences

The history of journalism in Nigeria can be divided into two eras—the colonial, which is the period marked by British imperialism, and the post-independence, characterized by military rule. The former began in 1859 when the first newspaper Iwe Irohin was established and the latter began on 1 October 1960, the date Nigeria became an independent nation. Ogbondah (1992) notes that the colonial period witnessed the introduction of press laws by alien political authorities. In the post-independence era, press laws were enacted by indigenous political authorities. Some of the laws were enacted by democratically elected officials representing the various constituencies of the governed. Other media laws were made by military governments that came to power without the mandate of the governed. One of the most repressive press laws in Nigeria was Decree No. 4 of 1984, also known as the Protection Against False Accusations Decree (Ogbondah 1989).

The relationship between the press and the government in Nigeria initially is one of suspicion and cold war. On the surface, they claim to have a symbiotic relationship, but that is not the case on a close examination (Amadi 2006). There is a suspicion that a free press could lionize the ordinary citizen to the extent of causing a shift in the power base. This is because of the contribution that journalism made toward the political decolonization of Nigeria. It has been argued that this suspicion stems from the impact that fettered pre-independence press played in the fight of independence of Nigeria (Amadi 2006). That is, the ability of the press to remove the powerful colonial masters. Amadi (2006) argues that the political class feared that an unfettered post-independence press would be too critical and strong for the new government to control.

Whereas the press in the anti-colonialist movement and repressive military era became known for critical, sometimes adversarial reporting, the ownership and control of major media organizations by prominent politicians appeared to dilute the overall influence and significance of the media (Dare 2011; Kperogi 2022; Olaniyan and Akpojivi 2021). Ownership, economic interest, and the concern for profit are arguably limiting the media’s ability to hold governments to account (Stiglitz 2017). The praxeological benefits that came with such critical and sometimes advocacy reporting brought goodwill to the profession. This forced state actors to harass and assault journalists.

Although the harassment of journalists by state actors in Nigeria is well studied and recorded, online and offline harassment of journalists in Nigeria is a new phenomenon. Uwalaka and Amadi (2023) note that online harassment has become a normative part of the lives of journalists in Nigeria and that online harassment experience induces fatigue, anxiety, and self-censorship. One of their key findings is that acute forms of online harassments were misrecognized as “online notice-me” or “online banter” (Uwalaka and Amadi 2023, 1937). However, they argue that political and investigative reporting are triggering factors for online harassment of journalists in Nigeria. Overwhelmingly, studies relating to online harassment of journalists in Nigeria have looked at it from either discrimination (Aribisala 2023) or press freedom (Onuche 2021) perspectives. That is, how online harassment shrinks press freedom in Nigeria. Some others inquired about the safety of journalists in Nigeria (Ibrahim et al. 2021; Ogwezzy-Ndisika and Shaibu 2017).

An attempt has been made to understand audience motivation and suggested solution for online harassment of journalists in Nigeria. Uwalaka et al. (2023) uncovered that perceived reportorial malpractice and unethical behaviours are the key reasons that the audience harass journalists in Nigeria. Their participants accused Nigerian journalists of failing to do “the right thing” (Uwalaka et al. 2023, 7). The participants who are members of the media audience suggested improved transparency and ethical conduct among other points as ways to prevent online harassment of journalists. Understanding what journalists think breeds the hostility that they face is significant. This is because it will provide a data point to compare with what their audience claim leads them to harass journalists. This confluence of ideas and data points has the potential to help ameliorate the issue. Therefore, our study examines Nigerian journalists’ perceived motivations for the online harassment they experience and their suggested solutions.

Method

Data collection

This inquiry reports on a mix of face-to-face and online semistructured qualitative interviews of 30 journalists in Nigeria. The first 12 interviews were conducted via Zoom and WhatsApp video calls whereas the remaining 18 interviews were conducted in person. Eighteen of the face-to-face interviews were conducted in Port Harcourt, Lagos, Owerri and Abuja and the 12 online interview participants were from Lagos, Port Harcourt, Kano, Kaduna, Calabar and Uyo; as such, the interviews covered both large and small cities across Nigeria. The semistructured interviews were conducted in English and the interviews were audio recorded with the consent of the participants.

All interviewees were asked demographic questions such as age, identifying gender, educational levels, and professional experience. Journalists were asked to describe instances of harassment, if any, that they have experienced online as part of their professional work. They were subsequently asked about what they think motivates hostilities towards the press. They were also encouraged to share how they think online harassment towards the press could be controlled.

The researchers adopted a snowball sampling approach in which journalists were recruited through referrals (Bryman 2016). In this study, journalists were encouraged to recruit their friends and colleagues for the study. Utilizing snowball sampling was important, as many journalists in Nigeria may not want to openly speak about their work and issues around how they are treated for fear of offending their employers or being seen as “weak”. It is personal to the journalists, and it may exacerbate the online harassment that they are already facing. This method allowed their friends (that is, those that they trust) to pitch the research to them having themselves participated in the interviews. These referrals helped the researchers to have more interview participants. This is why the researchers de-identified the journalists and instead used their interview number, location and media platforms to attribute comments to the interviewees.

Data analysis

The interviews were transcribed verbatim. After proofreading the transcripts, the data were moved into qualitative software called NVivo. The software then helped the researchers to retrieve code and build a conceptual framework that was handy at the theme development and meaning condensation stages. The codes drawn from the data were large in number. Consequently, we submitted the codes to some form of analysis that would consolidate meaning. The researchers adopted thematic and meaning condensation approaches to make sense of the data. This approach “entails an abridgement of the meanings expressed by the interviewees into shorter formulations” (Kvale 1996, 192). At its essence, the approach rephrases what is said by participants into just a few words of a more succinct nature, but in which the meaning is not lost. Meaning condensation starts with meaning categorization, narrative structure, and meaning interpretation. Its purpose is to allow the researcher to go “beyond what is directly said to work out structures and relations of meaning not immediately apparent in a text” (Kvale 1996, 201). In a nutshell, it allowed us to add subjective interpretations based on what the meaning is perceived to be from the experience undergone during the interview.

Our interview participants comprised 16 female and 14 male journalists. They work in mainly mainstream media with two participants working in online media platforms in Nigeria. Table 1 shows the breakdown as follows: TV, radio, newspaper/magazine, and online media channels. Fifteen participants were with TV stations across Nigeria, 10 newspaper and magazine journalists, 3 radio journalists and 2 online media. We adopted the analytical framework of Martin (2018) for the analysis of this study. This study interrogates responses from journalists to ascertain their perceived audience motivations for online harassment of journalists in Nigeria and their suggested solutions to controlling hostilities toward the press.

Table 1. Participants’ characteristics.

Participants	Gender	Age	Media outlet	City
1	Male	36	TV	Lagos
2	Male	31	Newspaper	Port Harcourt
3	Male	30	Newspaper	Lagos
4	Male	38	TV	Uyo
5	Female	31	Radio	Port Harcourt
6	Female	40	TV	Lagos
7	Female	33	TV	Abuja
8	Male	37	TV	Lagos
9	Male	42	Newspaper	Lagos
10	Female	30	TV	Lagos
11	Male	28	Newspaper	Calabar
12	Male	25	Online	Lagos
13	Male	30	Newspaper	Kaduna
14	Female	43	Newspaper	Port Harcourt
15	Male	37	TV	Kano
16	Female	22	Online	Port Harcourt
17	Female	28	Newspaper	Calabar
18	Male	43	TV	Lagos
19	Male	35	TV	Lagos
20	Female	41	Radio	Calabar
21	Male	42	Newspaper	Owerri
22	Female	33	Radio	Port Harcourt
23	Female	28	Newspaper	Lagos
24	Female	32	TV	Owerri
25	Female	27	Radio	Owerri
26	Female	36	Radio	Kaduna
27	Male	23	Radio	Kano
28	Female	22	TV	Uyo
29	Female	30	TV	Lagos
30	Female	29	Newspaper	Kaduna

Initial themes included experience of online harassment, experience of offline harassment, brown envelope, journalists receiving bribes from their report target, killing negative stories, editorial interference, romance with the target of a report, errors in media report, exaggerated reports, romance with a politician, partner belonging to political party, supporting a political party. Others include lack of online harassment laws, the need for laws, imprison offenders, charge perpetrators to court, ignorance of the role of the press, lack of understanding of the role of the press, stupidity, lack of understanding of the seriousness of online harassment, plan to silence the press, etc. We grouped the themes into a larger group. These grouping brought the themes down to five. These are journalistic malpractice, political polarization and populist sentiments, ensuring adequate punishment for offenders, media sensitization as well as security (offline and online). To enable us to gauge the responses better, through data reduction and constant comparison with axial coding, we were able to rename our themes into broad categories. According to Table 2, three broad categories emerged along the central research questions: They are: (i) online harassment of journalists, (ii) motivations for online harassment, (iii) suggested solutions on how to control online harassment.

Table 2. Sample themes.

Themes		Examples of themes	Participants
Perceived motivations for online harassment	Journalistic malpractice	They harass journalists they believe are biased.	Participant 2, Newspaper Columnist, 31, Port Harcourt
		Lack of understanding as to the issues and lack of trust.	Participant 21, Newspaper Reporter, 42, Owerri
		… when one finger picks oil, it reaches others.	Participant 4, TV Broadcaster, 38, Uyo.
		Nigeria is on the backfoot, credible journalism must be restored to the industry. The people don’t believe in us anymore because of some journalists who are more politicians, than journalists.	Participant 15, TV Presenter Reporter, 37, Kano
	Political polarization and populism	… To a large extent, e-mob censorship stems from online protests against the Nigerian state. However, the press is for unexplained reasons, seen as part of the hegemony.	Participant 4, TV Presenter, 38, Uyo
		Online dissatisfaction and contestation on bad leadership spills to journalism organisations that are linked to such politicians … Also, “enemies” of the politicians send their political online warriors to fight journalists who ask difficult questions.	Participant 17, Newspaper Columnist, 28, Calabar
Solutions to curb online harassment of journalists	Enact laws to protect journalists	Law enforcement should prosecute anyone who posts threat messages to journalists.	Participant 9, Newspaper Editor, 42, Lagos
		Promulgate laws that will protect journalists and implement them to the letter.	Participant 30, Newspaper Reporter, 29, Kaduna
	Media sensitization	Effective sensitization against harassment of journalists. Media campaigns against harassment of journalists.	Participant 1, TV News Editor, 36, Lagos
		An awareness campaign that enlightens the public to learn that journalists are part of the process and not enemies.	Participant 2, Newspaper Columnist, 31, Port Harcourt
	Security (offline and online)	Provision of adequate security	Participant 24, TV Presenter, 32, Owerri
		Media organizations must ensure that staff are adequately provided with security mechanisms physically and online.	Participant 6, TV Reporter, 40, Lagos

Results

Online harassment experience

Our participants reported that they use digital media platforms both for professional work and personal use daily. The popular digital media platforms that interviewees professionally engage with include Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram. Interviewees reported experiencing harassment of differing levels from their audiences on digital media platforms and sometimes even offline. All 30 participants have either experienced online harassment or know a colleague who has experienced online and, in some cases, offline harassment.

Although we asked participants to furnish us with insights about their online harassment experiences, interviewees not only discussed their online harassment experience but also reported their offline harassment experiences. Some of our interviewees reported to have frequently experienced online harassment. However, the interviews show that offline harassment, although less frequent, is more intense and usually scary.

A participant in Port Harcourt explained how she was severely harassed online and threatened with assassination during the 2019 governorship election in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. She further narrated how the online harassment spilled over to her work when she was physically assaulted by party agents during the elections. She noted, “I was consistently harassed online during the 2019 Governorship election in Rivers State” and “I was even physically assaulted in PH during the result tabulation at the INEC office in PH by party agents” (Participant 5, TV Reporter, 31, PH). Another participant discussed how she gets digitally harassed and provided an example where she was physically attacked in Lagos. She noted that she usually gets trolled, threatened, and harassed online when her news reports are published in the newspaper. She explained how she got harassed online for trying to balance a news story:

I got harassed online each time my investigative reporting is published in ****** newspaper. Those don’t faze me. However, I was recently harassed physically in the course of my duties. (Participant 3, Newspaper Reporter, 30, Lagos)

These comments and others like the highlighted ones show that online harassment of journalists is pervasive and cut across all journalistic spheres. The number of journalists in our sample that reported digital harassment is alarming and exposes deep anti-press sentiments and vilification of journalists and their product.

Perceived Motivations for Harassment of Journalists in Nigeria

Participants were asked what they think makes them a target of online harassment. Their responses to this question and other responses shaped what became the perceived motivation theme. In this theme and the subthemes that followed, participants guessed and expressed what they believed to contribute to the hostilities toward them. Participants noted that perceived journalistic misconduct and malpractices by members of the press foster online harassment of journalists. The participants expressed that audience-perceived unethical behaviour by a journalist increases suspicion of betrayal from audience members resulting not only in distrust in journalists but also heightening the probability of online harassment of such journalists. Participant 16, an online journalist, 22, from Port Harcourt, noted that “most times, when facts of issues are not presented accurately, people get angry and attack journalists. Secondly, perceived partisanship by some journalists or media organisations attracts hatred and online harassment”. Another participant observed that, “most time, unethical behaviour and reportorial misconduct from some of our colleagues bring harassment on social media and even in person” (Participant 7, TV Presenter, 33, Abuja).

Another participant made a related point. She contends that “reportorial malpractices and the collection of brown envelopes by some of us is why the people hate us and harass us” (Participant 28, TV Reporter, 22, Uyo). Using an African proverb to make the exact same point, another participant observed, “when one finger picks up oil, it reaches other fingers” (Participant 12, online Reporter, 25, Lagos). Like Participant 16, what Participant 12 is suggesting here is that when one journalist engages in journalistic malpractice, such misconducts are generalized to all journalists. In this sense, Participant 12 states that online harassment of journalists sometimes comes from misbehaviour from an infinitesimal number of journalists that then are generalized to all journalists.

These comments show that journalists themselves know that journalistic malpractice contributes to online harassment of journalists in Nigeria. This finding reflects other findings. For example, it has been argued that Nigerian journalists legitimize the hierarchical style by embracing rigid ideologically tainted news routines and that such legitimization constitutes impediment to Nigeria’s development by undermining journalists’ capacity for capacious construction and dissemination of social meaning (Amadi 2015). These objections to journalistic practices and social meaning-making can be grouped into journalistic malpractice and, as was eloquently communicated, could inform distrust in the media. Furthermore, like this study, other studies have demonstrated that Nigerians are distrustful and angry at the press due to unethical behaviours and shielding of the political elites in Nigeria from criticism during social movements such as the 2012 Occupy Nigeria Protests and the #EndSARS protests (Uwalaka 2020; Uwalaka and Nwala 2023). Findings from other studies (Mabweazara, Muneri, and Ndlovu 2020) have raised concerns around ownership of the media and its impact on perceived integrity of the press. The current finding reveals that journalists in Nigeria are aware and believe that untoward practices by a journalist breed harassment of not just the journalist that perpetrated the act but also other journalists who may be innocent.

Besides perceived journalistic malpractice, another subtheme of motivation that emerged from the interviews was politics and political polarization. During the interviews, the journalists noted that their audience harasses them due to certain motivations. The subtheme of politics and political polarization discusses harassment that occurs for political reasons. During the interviews, some journalists informed us that political polarization is one of the motivations for online harassment of journalists in Nigeria. For example, a TV Reporter in Lagos discussed how political intolerance fuels online harassments of journalists in Nigeria. He noted:

Political intolerance is the major issue. Secondly, most people don't want to see issues from another perspective. Once you portray an issue that is different from their opinion, they pounce on you. (Participant 8, TV Reporter, 37, Lagos)

The participant elaborated with an example. He explained how partisans trolled and attacked journalists just for critical coverage of their party or leaders. Participant 10, a 30-year-old TV reporter based in Lagos, contends that lack of trust in the media due to politics motivates people to harass journalists online and offline. She noted that “bias reportage and lack of editorial independence from political owners of media organizations deepen distrust in the media and exacerbates online violence against us”. In this quote, Participant 10 argues that the cagey editorial posture of many of the media houses in Nigeria and the apparent puissance that the majority of media owners exerts on the media houses contribute to the increasingly distrust of the media and online harassment. The participant highlighted some points that she believed not only motivate hostility towards the press but also some factors that aggravate audience angst against the press. As discussed above, one of such factors is the lack of editorial independence, particularly in media organizations that are owned by politicians or friends of politicians in Nigeria.

Participants also noted that political polarization serves as a fertile ground for online harassment of journalists in Nigeria. Many participants pointed to online political activists, partisan political followers and politicians as those that harass and threaten them online. A participant noted:

A lot of social media influencers and users harass journalists online for various excuses. Secondly, political polarization makes some people hate some media organizations and journalists working there because of their owner. For instance, people who belong to the opposition party, PDP in the country most times attack TVC news because the owner belongs to the ruling party, APC. Even supporters of the ruling party will also attack the station and the journalists online for expressing issues viewed as negative to the ruling party. (Participant 11, Newspaper Reporter, 28, Calabar)

What Participant 11 explained above is that political influencers harass journalists online. The participant further explained that political polarization causes some to hate media organizations that are owned by their political “foes” and extend their anger to journalists working in the news organization.

Suggested solutions to control online harassment

Participants noted several means of effectively protecting journalists in Nigeria. Some of these suggestions include an effective sensitization campaign against harassments of journalists, ensuring adequate punishment for offenders, and provision of adequate security.

The subtheme of conducting effective sensitization campaigns against online harassment of journalists was one of the most suggested solutions. Our interviews uncovered that our participants appeared to believe that lack of understanding and ignorance of the duties of journalists are some of the reasons that they were harassed online. Due to this so-called ignorance, our participants encouraged their media organizations, the government and their professional body, The Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ), to conduct sensitization campaigns on the duties of journalists and the adverse effect of cyber harassment. Participant 28 suggested that “an awareness campaign that enlightens the public about the impact of harassment should be commissioned”. Similarly, another participant encouraged the media outlets to have “conversations and PSAs about the severity of the issue” (Participant 27, Radio News Editor, 23, Kano).

Participant 1 further suggested “effective sensitization campaign against harassment of journalists” as some of the solutions to reduce online harassment of journalists in Nigeria. These comments show that the journalists believe that such sensitization campaigns will help their audience to understand what the journalists are supposed to be doing and to empathize with journalists. Coming to the realization that online harassment negatively impacts journalists and their work can deter the audience from engaging in such an act.

Another subtheme that emerged is that of ensuring adequate punishment for offenders. This means that the government should hold those that engage in online harassment to account. For example, Participant 27 suggested that “law enforcement officers should prosecute people who post threatening messages online.” Participant 1 also suggested “ensuring adequate punishment for offenders”. Our interviews show that participants wanted the perpetrators to be arraigned in a court of law as a way of punishing them. The participants believe that such punishments will coerce those who engage in online harassment or “networked harassment” (Marwick 2023) to “stop engaging in such vile behaviour” (Participant 6, TV presenter, 40, Lagos). These comments suggest that punishing those that perpetrate online harassment will help control the phenomenon.

The subtheme of provision of adequate security and enacting of laws that will protect journalists suggests that news organizations and the government could bolster the online security of their staff as well as enact laws that will target perpetrators of online harassment. A participant noted that “the government should make laws that will protect journalists and implement such laws” (Participant 15, TV Presenter, 37, Kano). On her part, Participant 28, said “media companies should take the lead in protecting their staff”. Another participant stated that the government should enact “further laws apart from the Freedom of the Press law that will protect and further strengthen the safety of journalists”. The participants recounted how online harassment is a dangerous trend that needs to be checked in order not to cower journalists and to help preserve the sanity of journalists. However, recent attempts to regulate social media platforms in Nigeria through two controversial pieces of draft legislations were unsuccessful (Olaniyan and Akpojivi 2021). Thus, it will be difficult for the latter suggestion to be adopted by the government.

Discussion

Drawing from 30 semistructured interviews with journalists in Nigeria, this study examined perceived motivations for the hostilities towards the press in Nigeria and journalists’ recommended solutions on how to control the phenomenon. Research question 1 asked: what is the online harassment experience or lack thereof, of Nigerian journalists? Our study uncovers that our interview participants have either experienced online harassment or know someone that has been harassed. This harassment, according to our participants, was due to audience-perceived partiality or corruption of journalists. Participants in our study expressed how they are suspected of destroying the country as the perpetrators of these online harassments accuse the journalists of engaging in corrupt practices such as collection of brown envelopes or engaging in yellow journalism, concealing the mistakes and alleged corruption of the political class and abandoning the masses.

Our study shows that online harassment of journalists in Nigeria is very common and underreported. Our results indicate that some forms of online harassment such as “acute harassment” (Holton et al. 2023, 859) were waived of as “online banter” and “online notice-me” (Uwalaka and Amadi 2023, 1). This suggests that online harassment of journalists is far more ubiquitous in Nigeria than reported. This implies that journalists could be in greater danger than is envisaged. The point is these online harassment experiences could lead to depression, anxiety, stress and occupational dysfunction (Shah et al. 2024). This finding partially resonates with Uwalaka and Amadi (2023) in that it shows that presence of online harassment of journalists.

Our study answered research question 2: what motivations do journalists ascribe to individuals who harass them in the cyberspace? Our study showed that the public are allegedly angry with journalists due to journalists’ alleged unethical conduct. This is in line with research in Nigeria and other countries. Studies have demonstrated that Nigerians are distrustful and angry at the press due to unethical behaviours and shielding of the political elites in Nigeria from criticism during social movements (Uwalaka 2020, 2024). Crucially, our study, like that of Uwalaka et al. (2023), demonstrates that perceived journalistic malpractices and unethical behaviours are the motivating factors to online harassment of journalists in Nigeria.

Our findings show similarities between what audience see as motivating factors as to why they harass journalists in Nigeria and journalists’ predicted factors as to why they are harassed. Like other studies (Uwalaka et al. 2023), results from our study indicate that the motivation for online harassment is perceived journalistic mistakes. Although our results are related to some of the highlighted points, our study further outlined political polarization and populist sentiments as other factors in the harassment of journalists in Nigeria.

This indicates that journalists believe that their audience in Nigeria see them to be political. This perceived political bias from our participants’ audience leads to hostilities against the press and their product. Politicians’ ownership of media organizations in Nigeria could impact how they treat journalists that work in such media organizations. Our participants note that the culture in some media organizations and the nature of ownership impact the quality of journalism in Nigeria and exacerbate online harassment of journalists in Nigeria. This raises concerns around the ownership of the media and its impact on journalistic integrity in Nigeria and Africa (Mabweazara, Muneri, and Ndlovu 2020).

Our findings point out the moral and cultural effects of brown envelope journalism and indeed address the dangers of yellow journalism and how returning and reimagining journalistic ethics will bolster trust in the media and could control online harassment of journalists (Okoro and Chinweobo-Onuoha 2013; Skjerdal 2018). In all, this study demonstrates that perceived journalistic malpractice and unethical behaviour are motivating factors in the online harassment of journalists. Comments from our participants show that online harassment is targeted at journalists as a group and the press as an institution.

According to one of our participants (Participant 4), “when one finger picks oil, it reaches others”. This African aphorism shows that the corrupt action or reportorial mistake of one journalist is usually generalized to the entire profession. Our participants highlighted that those who engage in unethical behaviour such as collecting “brown envelope” are in the minority. However, they noted that they are all seen as corrupt when that is not the case. This means that a journalist’s mistake impacts all journalists. This level of scrutiny demands a strict professional code of conduct and enforcement of such as erroneous act of a small group of journalists could sully the good work of other journalists. Our study indicates that those who harass journalists do so to get back at the journalism institution as they feel that journalists are corrupt and sell-out to the political class. The journalists did indicate that such suspicion is not entirely unfounded. However, they noted that many of their colleagues are good people who strive to contribute their quota to the development of Nigeria.

This study reflects two of Nerone’s (1994) typologies: violence against a group and violence against an institution. Our interview uncovered how moral outrage against journalists’ ethical and reportorial issues is used to justify online harassment. These online harassments are to reinforce social norms and sanction journalists for their alleged violation of norms. This is in line with research from other contexts where perpetrators of networked harassment often believe that their actions are justified. For example, network members who are morally motivated engage in online harassment as a way of reinforcing their adherence to their norms and signalling network membership (Marwick 2021).

This study uncovers that besides concerns around journalistic malpractice and unethical behaviour, journalists indicate that they are sometimes targeted out of political expediency. Our findings resonate with the idea that perpetrators of online harassment aim to “discipline and silence the press” (Waisbord 2020a, 1037). This is in line with populists’ vituperative demonization of the press to cower the press as well as divert critical coverage to more palatable issues for the politician (Carlson, Robinson, and Lewis 2021; Miller 2023). Our study demonstrates how increased intolerance and polarization in the political sphere has heated up the polity. For example, when journalists positively report on a good policy initiation of one party, members of the other party harass the journalists. This study highlights the role that political actors play and how they highjack populist causes and use the activist’s platforms to harass journalists (Kirchgaessner et al. 2021; Posetti 2018). The crucial point is that journalists understand the backhanded nature through which politics impacts harassment of journalists.

This study also answers research question 3: what solutions do journalists proffer for controlling online harassment of media professionals? The solutions delineated by the participants of this study reflect three of the four analytical frameworks proffered by Martin (2018) and echoed some solutions offered by participants in Uwalaka et al. (2023). The suggested media sensitization campaign targeting online harassment theme relates to the preventative measures outlined in the framework. These measures espouse strategies of care to ensure cyber safety and security of the journalists. The studied journalists believe that developing an awareness campaign against online harassment will help reduce the networked harassment of journalists.

The next two suggested solutions—enact laws and provide security—relate to Martin’s (2018) procedural and prosecutorial measures. These measures are both strategies of care and campaigning in that their development requires that everyone listens to journalists’ anti-online harassment needs and take responsibility to ensure that these needs are met. Also, the measures require that journalists and media organizations get involved in campaigns for justice through enforcement and implementation of harassment laws and enacting new laws to further protect journalists. This, according to our study, brings the journalists and their media organizations into right-based debates with states and judicial actors.

Put together, this study illustrates that the online harassment that journalists face is usually based on the sensitivity of the events being reported. Our study reveals that when journalists are reporting events that have a political undertone, they are more likely to experience online harassment than when such reporting or news beat are less linked to politics (Gever et al. 2022, 2023). This study shows journalists covering political events are highly vulnerable to online threats. This indicates that political reporters come under severe scrutiny in Nigeria.

Our finding shows a mixed result in terms of suggested solution to that of Uwalaka et al. (2023). In the latter, the participants are media audience, whereas in our study, the participants are journalists. In Uwalaka et al. (2023, 15), their participants suggested solutions include “improved transparency”, “implement robust professional code of conduct” and “enact laws protecting journalists”. In our study, suggested solutions include media sensitization, ensuring adequate punishment for offenders, and provision of adequate security and enacting of new laws. This finding indicates that in all the suggested solutions and ways to control online harassment of journalists in Nigeria delineated in this study, our participants did not suggest any measure that is in their hands to change. This means that these journalists did not see anything wrong or anywhere that they could improve. In fact, their suggested solutions show that they think those that perpetrate online harassment are ignorant and lacking in understanding. This could explain why the journalists suggested media sensitization of the people. Even after accepting that there are some bad apples in their ranks, that is, journalists who engage in reportorial malpractice, our participants still did not suggest improve professional code of conduct as a way of controlling online harassment.

Our study further shows that our participants are a bit insensitive to the plight of their audience. The way and manner that our participants described and spoke of their audience shows that they were aloof to the concerns of their audience and devoid of self-reflection. This detachment could come across as arrogance and has the potential of exacerbating hostilities towards journalists. For example, even when our participants noted that the perceived journalistic malpractices were a motivating factor to online harassment, they did not recommend greater transparency or improved professional code of conduct as ways to ameliorate the situation. We argue that Nigerian journalists need to listen more to their audience. We implore journalists in Nigeria to employ reflective practices and competently discharge their fourth estate role as ways to control the online harassment phenomenon.

Our study is significant in the study of online harassment motives in Africa and the world. This is due to the fact that the press in Nigeria is considered the most vibrant in Africa due to its antecedence of promoting and strengthening the democratic culture (Nyamnjoh 2004). Our study suggests that the implementation of laws that protect journalists as well as embarking on media sensitization on the adverse effects of online harassment of journalists will control the phenomenon of online harassment. These suggestions will enable the populace to understand that online harassment is real and will put a human face to those suffering from the malaise. This study suggests that the media organizations, professional media bodies and the government should take the lead to enlighten the people on the need to curtail online harassment of journalists. Crucially, we suggest that journalists in Nigeria listen more and embrace ideas such as ethical reporting and improved professional code of conduct.

Limitations of the study

Although semistructured interviews offer good data sets, this study depends on an unrepresentative sample. Our aim was to find meaning via our participants’ comments and not to provide generalizable inferences. Throughout the conduct of the study, there is an apparent lacuna in the online harassment literature. Although this study has bridged some of these gaps by looking at the perceived motivations of online harassment of journalists and has suggested ways to control the phenomenon from journalists’ perspectives, there are still gaps that need to be bridged. One such gap is the need to conduct a study to ascertain the extent and impact of online harassment of journalists in Nigeria. Here, an in-depth study with a robust data set needs to be conducted to critically examine online harassment of journalists in Nigeria and the many ways that the problem may manifest. Also, there is a need for a study that focuses on what the perpetrators of online harassments believe motivate them to harass journalists and their suggested ways of controlling the phenomenon.

Conclusion

This paper drew from semistructured interviews with 30 journalists in Nigeria. The study shows that journalists experience online harassment in Nigeria. The participants stated that they were targeted because of their profession and due to audience-perceived journalistic malpractice and unethical behaviour. Our study also shows that journalists believe that political polarization and populist sentiments are factors exacerbating online harassment of journalists in Nigeria. Comments from the participants showed that perceived journalistic malpractice angers the audience. This frustration leads to chronic online harassment of the press in Nigeria.

Our study further indicates that journalists in Nigeria believe that media sensitization campaigns, increased security and enacting of new laws and enforcement of such laws will assuage the animosity between the press and their audience in Nigeria. This study suggests that when these proposed solutions are implemented, the tension between the press and the audience will be dispelled.

Our finding corroborates and extends the findings from other contexts about the struggles of journalists in Africa in this social media age (Mabweazara 2014; Mabweazara and Mare 2021). One key contribution of this study is that it attempts to understand the perceived motivations and to suggest solutions of online harassment of journalists from journalists’ perspective. This study highlights journalists’ recommendation on how to improve the relationship between the press and their audience in Nigeria, and how such reimagined relationships will bolster trust in the media.

Our study extends Martin’s (2018) analytical framework. The suggested ways to control online harassment of journalists in this study illustrate the preventative, procedural and prosecutorial measures of the analytical frameworks. This study extends the applicability of the analytical framework to a wider group and not just to female groups and to a different country. Our study argues that the participants are a bit insensitive and aloof to the concerns of their audience. Journalists did not highlight transparency or improved code of conduct as ways to mend the situation. The detachment appeared to be arrogance and has the potential to exacerbate hostilities towards the press. Our study reveals that all the suggested solutions are external to the journalists. This is not the best way to tackle online harassment as it could be misconstrued as devoid of self-reflection or empathy. We recommend that Nigerian journalists need to listen more to their audience and to embrace ideas such as transparency and improved professional code of conduct.

Acknowledgements

We would like to appreciate the peer-reviewers of this manuscript for their constructive and comprehensive feedback to our manuscript. Their constructive comments and brilliant suggestions immensely improved our manuscript. We would also like to thank the editors for their unalloyed support and professionalism throughout this process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).