Overview
The year 2021 marked a turning point for Belarusian journalism. Many independent media outlets were blocked within the country, designated as “extremist,” and forced to suspend or relocate their operations. Journalists and editors faced detentions, raids, and systemic repression. Against this backdrop of tightening political control and an ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, LGBTQ+ topics became increasingly absent from the national media agenda — but the language and framing that did appear were often problematic.
The Journalists for Tolerance initiative conducted this monitoring to provide a systematic overview of how LGBTQ+ people were portrayed in the Belarusian media — specifically tracking the use of incorrect vocabulary and manifestations of hate speech. The analysis focused on 272 online publications, both national and regional, released between January and October 2021.
Trends and Dynamics
The study found that 62% of materials used correct terminology when referring to LGBTQ+ topics, while 38% contained incorrect or stereotypical language. Although correct usage still prevailed, the gap was shrinking — a continuation of the trend that began in the second half of 2020.
More worryingly, hate speech was present in 24% of all LGBTQ+-related publications, nearly double the rate observed the year before. This rise followed the escalation of state-led repression and mirrored the political crisis unfolding in Belarus. While the total volume of LGBTQ+-related content was declining, the proportion of articles containing harmful rhetoric continued to grow.
Incorrect language most often appeared in passing references — when LGBTQ+ issues were not the main focus, but were briefly mentioned among other topics. However, even dedicated coverage no longer guaranteed accuracy. Among publications fully focused on LGBTQ+ subjects, only 60% used correct language — down from nearly 90% in previous years. This marked a serious decline in both quality and ethical consistency.
Media Landscape
In 2021, national media were still somewhat more likely to use respectful language compared to regional outlets, but the gap between them narrowed significantly. Regional platforms were more likely to rely on stigma, fear-based framing, or derogatory tropes, highlighting the urgent need for targeted educational efforts within local media ecosystems.
Language and Framing
The terms “LGBT” and “gay” were the most frequently used to refer to the entire LGBTQ+ spectrum. Other frequently mentioned categories included “same-sex relationships” and “transgender,” with these terms often framed negatively in state media — particularly in commentary on “Western lifestyles.”
Stigmatising phrases such as “non-traditional orientation,” “sexual minority,” and “homosexualism” appeared in 19% of all publications, a slight increase compared to previous years. Religious slurs like “Sodom” and “sodomite” also returned to media usage after years of absence, a trend that persisted throughout 2021.
Editorial Recommendations
Anton Borisenko, sociologist and researcher at Journalists for Tolerance, advises media professionals to review their texts for incorrect vocabulary using the free J4T-checker tool. He also cautions against using LGBTQ+ people as generic examples or mere tokens to demonstrate inclusivity. When touching on sensitive issues — especially those related to identity, violence, or discrimination — editors are strongly encouraged to dedicate a separate, focused article that treats the subject with appropriate depth and respect.
Conclusions
The 2021 monitoring results show that while respectful language still holds a slight majority in Belarusian media, the foundation is weakening. Hate speech is growing in frequency, especially in articles that treat LGBTQ+ issues superficially. The editorial gap between national and local outlets continues to narrow, with many regional publications adopting increasingly hostile or dismissive tones.
In these conditions — marked by repression, censorship, and the dismantling of independent newsrooms — the role of ethical journalism becomes even more vital. Supporting inclusive editorial practices, strengthening education for media professionals, and maintaining independent platforms must remain top priorities.
The full report and supporting data are available upon request.
