Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Kevin Mudavadi, Assistant Professor, Georgia State University
Online harassment targeting journalists has escalated into a global crisis. Across digital public spheres, it threatens press freedom and individual safety.
In Kenya, this hostility often unfolds on social media platforms like X and Facebook, where journalists covering politically sensitive events face coordinated attacks. For instance, following critical coverage of state policies or public protests, journalists are regularly branded as “political mercenaries” or “traitors” in comment threads, prompting audiences to swarm their personal accounts with threats.
Digital attacks like these actively erode public trust in news institutions. They create a hostile environment that pressures journalists towards self-censorship. Yet, these attacks also unfold before audiences whose reactions can strengthen or weaken their effects.
Insults, smear campaigns, sexual harassment and death threats may begin with a few accounts. They gain wider power when other users repeat them, defend them or remain silent. The public, therefore, does more than witness journalists being harassed. They help determine whether an attack is rejected as intimidation or accepted as a legitimate response to journalism.
We are a team of media researchers, and our recent study examined how Kenyan audiences understand and respond to online harassment against journalists.
Understanding this audience response is vital for restoring trust in news outlets and journalists, and protecting democratic environments.
What we found
The study interviewed 19 Kenyan adults from different demographic, economic, urban and rural backgrounds to understand how they interpreted attacks appearing on their social media feeds.
The interviews showed that audiences rarely judged online attacks in isolation. Their interpretations were shaped by political loyalties, trust in the media and assessments of the journalist involved. These judgments influenced whether they defended the reporter, supported the criticism or withdrew from the conversation.
At least three themes emerged from the responses drawn from the interviews. Harassment was understood as:
-
a threat to press freedom
-
a form of public accountability
-
a political strategy for silencing critical journalism.
For instance, one interviewee shared a proactive approach:
What I always do is to put my comment there and just correct someone who’s harassing a female journalist … I always counter what they say. I think this should be seen as a moral or civic obligation … to protect the welfare of journalists.
Another chose to discuss the matter with colleagues:
I vent more physically compared to online … when I see something which is not right being done to a journalist or anyone … I show my colleagues comments, discuss, and vent, and to hear their point of view.
Another explained a conditional engagement:
It depends on the nature of the harassment … if the journalist is being harassed because of something wrong, especially if they side with the government … if I come across such harassment, I will not feel bad because I will feel the journalist is not part of us.
These responses sometimes overlapped. Participants could condemn an attack in one situation and defend similar conduct in another.
Participants who trusted a journalist generally viewed threats and personal insults as attempts to obstruct legitimate reporting. They understood journalists as public watchdogs whose work could expose wrongdoing and information about powerful institutions. Attacking a reporter for performing this role, therefore, threatened both the journalist and the public’s access to information.
Other participants interpreted harsh online reactions as a form of accountability when they believed a journalist had acted unfairly, supported a political group or produced sensational coverage. Their concern began with the reporter’s conduct, especially during politically divisive moments. In such cases, aggressive responses were sometimes understood as citizens challenging media power.
Another interpretation focused on the organised political forces behind some attacks. Participants described coordinated campaigns involving political operatives and paid social media users, commonly called “keyboard warriors” in Kenya. These groups can flood comment sections. They repeat accusations and create the appearance of widespread anger against a journalist. Under these conditions, harassment becomes a political strategy. It damages the journalist’s credibility while discouraging further scrutiny of those in power.
These responses reveal a difficult problem for press freedom. Public protection can depend on whether audiences believe that a particular journalist deserves it. The same threat may be condemned as intimidation when directed at a trusted reporter, or accepted as accountability when directed at a distrusted one.
The reach of abuse
The structure of social media gives online attacks room to spread. Messages built around anger, accusation and personal conflict can attract rapid attention. Repeated comments can make a coordinated campaign appear to represent broad public opinion.
As the attack circulates, the original news report may disappear. The journalist’s character, motives or identity may become the main subject of discussion.
Women journalists carry a particularly heavy burden within this environment. Participants described attacks involving sexual comments, body shaming and threats of physical or sexual violence. Such abuse moves beyond disagreement with a report. It targets a woman’s dignity, safety and place in public life. Its effects can extend beyond one journalist. Other women watching the attack may understand political reporting as a source of personal danger.
The silence of witnesses
Study participants described two distinct responses when they encountered harassment.
Some engaged in counter-speech – correcting false claims, challenging abusive comments or reporting harmful accounts. They viewed these actions as part of protecting journalism and preserving open public discussion.
Others remained silent because they feared becoming targets.
Participants mentioned doxxing (sharing private or identifying information of someone online without their consent), personal insults and attacks from coordinated groups as possible consequences of defending a journalist. Some also believed that one person could achieve little against a large or organised campaign.
This silence shows how online harassment can control more than the journalist’s behaviour. It can also narrow public discussion by teaching witnesses that participation carries personal risks.
When concerned users withdraw, aggressive groups gain greater influence over which voices are heard and which claims appear widely accepted.
Press freedom requires public support
These findings show that journalists’ safety cannot rest entirely on blocking tools, security training or platform reporting systems. It also depends on whether audiences can distinguish criticism of journalism from efforts to intimidate journalists.
Criticism examines a reporter’s evidence, methods and professional decisions. Harassment targets the person. It creates fear and raises the cost of continuing to report.
News organisations can strengthen this distinction by explaining how stories are produced. They can correct errors openly and respond seriously to public concerns. Media literacy programmes can also help citizens recognise coordinated attacks, gendered abuse and threats presented as political criticism.
– Online attacks on Kenyan journalists: what makes audiences join in, push back or stay silent
– https://theconversation.com/online-attacks-on-kenyan-journalists-what-makes-audiences-join-in-push-back-or-stay-silent-291471