The study “Preparing for Risks and Building Resilience” by Elsebeth Frey from Oslo Metropolitan University looked at the physical, practical and trauma aspects of crisis journalism through in-depth interviews of nine journalists from five countries.
Trauma reporting is central to journalism. According to previous studies, the vast majority of journalists are exposed to traumatic work-related events or death over their careers. Hence, this study focused on the concept of resilience and on how journalists cope with traumatic stress and physical danger.
The safety of journalists is an important issue, as it directly impacts press freedom and the right of the public to receive news about recent events. According to Sarikakis (2017), the majority of journalists are slain in war zones and conflict areas. Sometimes local journalists are even targeted.
Journalists, like emergency personnel, are often the first or at least second responders to violent events. Thus, they are exposed to the sights, sounds, and smells accompanying such events, and are at risk of developing PTSD as a result.
Previous research, however, indicates that journalists exposed to such dangers are resilient. This resilience includes both acting properly during a traumatic event and bouncing back in the aftermath. Despite or perhaps because of this resilience, newsrooms have not had a good track record on providing resources and support for journalists exposed to traumatic events. Thus, social support may be lacking.
As mentioned, nine journalists from five countries on three continents were interviewed for the study. These journalists, between them, had covered events and locales such as Gaza and the West Bank, Israel, Iraq, Ukraine, South Sudan and Libya, Yazidis fleeing Islamic State’s (IS) territory, the Lord’s Resistance Army in northern Uganda, the Tunisian revolution, and terror attacks in Kenya, Northern Ireland, Norway and the Middle East.
The sample of journalists is not representative, as they were specifically selected by the author based on relevance. But they all had experience with danger and traumatic events. Four were females and five were males. Though the interviewees were distant geographically, their challenges were similar. The interviews were conducted between 2014 to 2019, and all were asked the same questions.
All nine had been first responders to traumatic events. All had faced verbal or physical attacks and threats by either police, demonstrators, interview subjects, soldiers, and so on. Three of the four females had faced sexualized harassment. However, the women also emphasized positive aspects of their gender, such as increased access. One of the journalists had to flee their own country, and the media organization did not help their family.
In addition to direct personal danger and threats, the journalists were also exposed to traumatized people. These encounters are not easily forgotten. Some came across wounded people or even corpses or body parts.
How do the journalists prepare for assignments and maintain control, then? First of all, practicalities like protective equipment and insurance are essential. Training would also be beneficial, but seven out of nine had not received any safety training, one had completed a course at BBC, and one had received regular training.
Knowledge is also essential. This knowledge beforehand includes knowledge of cultural dimensions and health risk assessment. They prepared for the assignments beforehand, and pointed out that documents needed to be in order. There is also need for an emergency person and routines, and services such as a guide or an interpreter are essential – and the importance of finding the right one is emphasized.
One option was to be embedded with the army. However, they were not necessarily as free to publish as they were when ‘going solo’, as it could be dangerous to do so. Soldiers did, however, provide additional safety. Working with colleagues was also a popular strategy – bonding with peers was a positive strategy.
The journalists sought to limit their exposure to trauma to what is necessary, and sought to create resilient strategies such as avoiding predictable routines to avoid danger. Situational awareness, when working, was essential.
Focusing on work was also seen as a strategy to distance oneself from the traumatic events, but it was viewed as a bit of a double edged sword. Some interviewees discussed events where they had been overly focused on work and then exposed to danger too much – sometimes with the camera acting as an imaginary shield from danger.
Adrenalin also caused the interviewees to neglect eating, sleeping, and rest, which could then prevent from monitoring stressors and it was unhealthy in the long run. The author suggests that journalists need to learn about bodily effects such as working on an adrenalin kick and use them to their advantage.
The interviewees stressed that experience came with many benefits, as in the beginning one is afraid to act. With experience, one can remind themselves why they are there and act in a professional and respectful way, even when exposed to the best and the worst humanity can offer.
Ethical dilemmas were common. Many felt forced to act against their own moral values when exposed to traumatized people, which in turn led to feelings of guilt and more stress and worse post-traumatic symptoms. Ethical decisions also include what to publish – such as avoiding showing dead people in close-up shots.
Six out of nine felt they were not safeguarded or looked after their employer. The author cautions that the sample is not representative, but notes that the journalists from Africa received the least information and support.
The majority also received no support on trauma reactions. Six of nine received no or minimal support. Four received formal support from a therapist, two from a media house and one on their own. One interviewee wistfully commented that soldiers and police receive trauma support, but journalists do not. This is common with other first responders, though.
Informal support was also lacking. Three of nine stated that no one cared. Three received journalistic backup, but no trauma-related help. Three were content with the newsroom. Two of the latter were Norwegians – previous research suggests that the culture of support is functioning there.
Support from peers was important, but the interviewees clearly meant peers who they shared the traumatic experiences with, not just any peers. These peers were not necessarily from the same organization.
The journalists employed many strategies when coping with stress. The professional status and work were utilized – all the participants sought purpose and meaning. Bearing witness and seeking to improve difficult situations makes the job meaningful. Seeking to avoid bad decisions was an important aspect, as guilt for harming others was associated with post-traumatic stress.
Balancing work and personal life was also important, but the participants were aware of the personal costs that came with work. Some thought that covering traumatic events was just part of being a journalists, while others sought to mitigate events that led to stressor signals. Some steered clear of terrible pictures or violent movies afterwards to avoid stress. The author notes that this can be helpful but also limit one’s space.
None of the journalists confessed to maladaptive coping strategies such as substance abuse. One did take anxiety pills afterwards, and one admitted to drinking when returning from a traumatic assignment. Three mentioned that the adrenalin kick is addictive, and stated that the best way to cope is to have more of it.
Decompressing and consoling takes time. Many interviewees were clear that the memories never go away, leading to nightmares. Decompressing strategies included hobbies and social activities, such as letting off steam with exercise or relaxing with yoga. Two used writing as a strategy to cope.
As Walsh (2003) revealed, close relationships foster resilience. Spending time with family and loved ones was important as mentioned by several. For some, children were a source of resilience but also a concern – for example, the journalist in question did not want the children to see a bloodied computer. Peers with similar experiences also fostered resilience.
Most of the interviewees reported feeling stronger after the trauma reporting, having had post-traumatic growth. Being close to death was mentioned as making one appreciate life more, and making use of all your personal and professional resources in the event changes one forever. Career advancement was also mentioned by many.
In conclusion, all the interviewees used a variety of strategies. Using problem-focused coping strategies in planning and in the field was common. Reflective strategies fostered resilience, and many of the strategies were emotional. Maladaptive strategies such as alcohol, pills, disappearing into work, or becoming addicted to the adrenalin kick were also mentioned.
All of the interviewees would have required more support from the news organization. The author speculates that maybe an NGO or a union might launch campaigns to increase support. Still, eight out of nine would cover traumatic events again.
The article “Preparing for Risks and Building Resilience” by Elsebeth Frey is in Journalism Studies. (free abstract).
Picture: Ruined side-street in Shingal (Sinjar) following war with the Islamic State. By Levi Meir Clancy.
License Unsplash.