Converting "cancel culture" into an "accountability culture"

Freedom of speech may be a right under the law, but are there limitations to it? The rise of the term “cancel culture” challenges the simplicity of the first amendment, demonstrating that certain words and phrases should not be uttered without lasting consequences. Moreover, what was deemed popular aftermath for celebrities under the public eye is now a phenomenon reaching various sectors, including the media. As a result, journalists from acclaimed news outlets also became a target of cancel culture. This leads to an ongoing debate on whether or not this situation has been censoring coverage or keeping the factors accountable for their actions. 

After his controversial remarks on-air regarding Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s interview with Oprah, Piers Morgan left his six-year-long post in Good Morning Britain. The journalist did not cease to speak on the matter in a tweet: “On Monday, I said I didn’t believe Meghan Markle in her Oprah interview. I’ve had time to reflect on this opinion, and I still don’t. If you did, OK. Freedom of speech is a hill I’m happy to die on.” Morgan’s ITV departure led to a heated debate between Sharon Osbourne and her co-host Sheryl Underwood in the “The Talk”. The argument consequently cost Osbourne’s role in the show, due to claims of racist behavior. 

The situation above is only one of the many examples pertaining cancel culture within the media industry. Foreign Press spoke with Katie Herzog, host of the “Blocked and Reported” podcast and a former columnist for “The Stranger”, about her views on the matter after being a target herself.  “When I had a staff job, there were things my editors didn’t want me, in particular, to cover, because of the backlash. So it quite literally influenced my job, because I was told not to cover certain issues.”

Herzog was laid off during the pandemic. The extra free time gave her the opportunity to explore the podcasting world and continue to tell stories that were underrepresented in the mainstream. “On a less sort of material level, we also wanted to have a place to talk about things that people wouldn’t find in mainstream news…I would hear these stories and see only one perspective represented in a way that I really found frustrating. We wanted to have something more focused on really trying to get to the truth of the matter”, she says.

Despite the restrictions caused by cancel culture in regards to expressing unpopular viewpoints, there have also been positive takeaways. Many perceive cancel culture as accountability culture, for it keeps the factors aware of their actions and the possible repercussions. It also enables the barriers surrounding journalistic coverage less apparent, as more voices are willing to speak up about sensitive topics. 

Foreign correspondent Emiliana Molina told Foreign Press about the facility she has in regards to approaching interviewees after the cancel culture uproar. “Cancel culture has burned some of the barriers that kept marginalized communities from democratic participation and allowed them to organize into mass protests or criticism. Due to this massive criticism, communities of color, for example, feel supported and are much more willing to speak out on camera. This was not the case a few years back. This helps journalists find less common points of view in an easier and timely manner to meet deadlines. Social media as a whole has made it easier for journalists to find stories and voices that are more representative of our country.”

While the debate regarding what is and is not allowed in freedom of speech remains ongoing, there have been concerns regarding the shaky reality for media representatives. A role meant to inform the population on current affairs, is now challenged to be cautious of what is said and reported to the masses. Berkley High Jacket writer, Kira Rao-Poolla has felt personally affected by cancel culture’s impact on journalists’ liberty of expression. 

“As a writer myself, I’ve felt the emotional impact of cancel culture firsthand. While I try my best to maintain journalistic integrity, it can feel frightening to express my actual opinions, understanding the threat of backlash or severe consequences. I’ve read about editors of prestigious newspapers whose career was ended by a single mistake. Journalism must be honest. People should feel free to express their actual opinions, not just cater to what they think the public wants to hear. That’s not journalism. That’s robotic compliance.”

Although the lines are blurry in regards to what is socially acceptable or immediately canceled, the role of the journalist continues the same. Keep the integrity, provide holistic coverage, give a voice to the underrepresented, and set aside bias. Cancel culture should not prevent the importance of fair and factual information. On the contrary, cancel culture should bring incentive to accountability and teach valuable lessons about respect for opposing viewpoints.