The Inconsistency of Trauma-Related Journalism Education Goals and Instruction

Abstract

Many journalism students cover stories about tragedy and violence (trauma). Yet few journalism schools offer trauma training despite growing agreement among educators that early journalists need to learn about the impact of reporting trauma on victims, the community, and the journalists’ themselves. This contrast is puzzling. This study aimed to identify what trauma-related topics are valued and which are taught. First, 156 Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) members completed a survey rating the importance and extent of course coverage of self-care, trauma-informed interviewing, trauma’s impact on the community, and best trauma community reporting practices. The commonly deemed highly valued topics include ethics of accuracy, sensitivity, respect for survivors, and privacy rights. Self-care was deemed important but often not covered. Qualitative interviews provided context on pedagogical techniques, experiences, and barriers to teaching trauma.

Keywords

journalism trauma journalism education journalistic education mass disaster ethics

Trauma training has long been identified as a need in journalism education in the United States (e.g., Dworznik & Grubb, 2007; Hill et al., 2020; Maxson, 2000; Newman, 2001; Newman & Nelson, 2012; Ogunyemi & Akanuwe, 2021; Weiss, 2013) to (a) help journalists cover tragedy more effectively and (b) reduce problematic occupational mental health outcomes among journalists. However, recent college graduates or novice journalists oftentimes are thrust into situations in which they face trauma coverage and ethical challenges without proper preparation (Amend et al., 2012). College journalists face similar situations when and if they cover traumatic events on their campuses such as sexual assault, physical assault, and mass shootings.

Despite the recognition of the need for trauma training, just more than 10% in the United States offer any training in trauma and related work. (Hill et al., 2020). Two universities—Michigan State and Washington—began incorporating trauma into journalism education beginning in 1991, but covering traumatic events is not widely taught or incorporated into any journalism curriculum (Anderson & Bourke, 2020). A 2013 survey of journalism faculty members in 103 Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) accredited journalism programs found that only 37% of programs reported dedicating some portion of the curriculum to trauma journalism (Melki et al., 2013). A similar deficit of courses focusing on terrorism, a subset of journalism trauma-related topics, has also been noted (Lepre & Luther, 2007).

When trauma training is offered, the breadth and depth of training are inconsistent. Studies have shown that a limited number of courses address trauma training for journalists, most especially for real-world experiences such as covering tragedy (e.g., Hill et al., 2020). Yet consistently noted gaps in trauma training include self-care of journalists, covering political violence and terrorism, being first on a scene, racial violence, and domestic violence. These gaps are problematic as reporters who received trauma education during their higher education journalism program reported greater awareness of methods to minimize harm to trauma survivors and themselves (Seely, 2019). With respect to covering disasters, three major areas consistently are discussed as essential areas of training for journalists: (a) self-care (e.g., Dworznik & Grubb, 2007; Hopper & Huxford, 2017; Jones, 2021), (b) interviewing (e.g., Newman & Shapiro, 2014; Simpson, 2004), and (c) community impact (e.g., Anderson & Bourke, 2020; Moritz, 2001).

Self-Care

Journalists are recognizing the need for self-care on the job (Miller, 2021), defined in this context as “activities that help to identify, respond to, and cope with general stress and the potentially traumatic stressors of being a reporter (Gutkowska, 2005). Increasingly, topics related to self-care and well-being (e.g., emotional labor, ethics of care) are discussed as recommendations in the journalism curriculum (Hopper & Huxford, 2017; Jones, 2021). For instance, Hill and colleagues (2020) recommended reducing the stigmatization of journalists’ normal emotional reactions to covering trauma in classroom training (e.g., Hill et al., 2020). But research has found limited educational coverage of self-care. A 2019 survey of 41 accredited U.S. journalism schools found that only one program offered a full course covering self-care and interacting with trauma survivors, despite schools reporting the value of the topics (Dworznik & Garvey, 2019). Similarly, in a small survey of upper-level journalism courses from two universities, nearly half (47.6%) of journalism students indicated that they had not learned about implementing effective coping skills when covering traumatic events (Dworznik & Grubb, 2007).

Understanding the precise needs of journalism educators to address self-care is necessary. University and college journalism programs need to introduce an “ethics of care” into their curriculum to help counter the high turnover rates in the industry (Jones, 2021). Covering traumatic events and having repeated exposure to tragedy contribute to symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; e.g., Buchanan & Keats, 2011; Feinstein et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2018; Marais & Stuart, 2005; McMahon, 2001; Newman et al., 2003; Simpson & Boggs, 1999; Smith et al., 2017; Teegen & Grotwinkel, 2001; Weidmann et al., 2008; Weidmann & Papsdorf, 2010). Predicting variables such as length of exposure, tenure, and coping strategies have been found to be significantly related to journalists’ work-related trauma symptoms (e.g., McMahon, 2001; Newman et al., 2003; Pyevich et al., 2003; Simpson & Boggs, 1999; Teegen & Grotwinkel, 2001; Weidmann et al., 2008; Weidmann & Papsdorf, 2010). Researchers have also found that journalists use a variety of strategies, both adaptive and maladaptive, at work (e.g., Buchanan & Keats, 2011; Monteiro & Pinto, 2017; Smith et al., 2017; Teegen & Grotwinkel, 2001). For example, journalists cope effectively through using social and organizational support (e.g., Beam & Spratt, 2009; Newman et al., 2003). In addition to coping techniques, the role of occupational stressors in journalism also has been investigated (Monteiro & Pinto, 2017; Smith et al., 2017). Journalists who engaged in avoidant emotional coping behavior and reported a higher extent of perceived organizational stressors (e.g., inconsistent leadership styles, supervisor conflict) tended to report more severe symptoms of work-related PTSD (Smith et al., 2017). In a study investigating occupational stressors and self-reported coping techniques, researchers found that journalists covering either daily (non-catastrophic) or traumatic events used emotional coping strategies; however, journalists who covered traumatic events tended to report greater use of problem-solving strategies in addition to emotion-based coping strategies (Monteiro & Pinto, 2017). Interestingly, savoring coping strategies were also identified in self-reports from journalists who covered traumatic events (Monteiro & Pinto, 2017).

Trauma-Informed Interviewing

The typical methods of newsgathering and interviewing taught in colleges today are tailored toward public officials or people in power (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007). However, these techniques are less effective when used on or in gaining the trust of survivors of trauma who feel helpless when thrust into the spotlight by their experiences (Dufresne, 2004; Newman & Shapiro, 2014). Trauma-informed interview techniques, however, are interviewing techniques that support the victim in their recovery and create minimal disturbance to the interviewee. Often in the immediate aftermath of trauma, individuals might be highly emotional, dazed, or have difficulty speaking (Simpson, 2004). Thus, techniques based on compassionate, honest, clear, and respectful communication are needed and often require adequate time to build rapport, arrange a somewhat private location, and obtain explicit informed consent (Ochberg, 1996; Simpson, 2004). Using a qualitative methods approach, researchers created a schema of best practices for reporting disasters before and during their occurrence (Ewart & McLean, 2019). Best practices for the interviewing portion of covering disasters throughout their occurrence include making sure that reliable and correct sources are used, and that journalists refrain from causing subjects any further harm (Ewart & McLean, 2019). In a study using students taking upper-level journalism courses, 69% of those students disagreed that their courses had taught them how to avoid causing harm to interviewees and families (Dworznik & Grubb, 2007). Richards and Rees (2011) proposed that all journalism training and practices, but especially those that are trauma-related, focus on enhancing journalists’ emotional literacy which they define as acknowledging, understanding, and managing sources’ affective experiences (Richards & Rees, 2011). Furthermore, journalists’ ability to manage their own emotional reactions when interviewing needs attention. In fact, the role of emotional management and emotional labor is seldom covered in journalism textbooks (Hopper & Huxford, 2017). However, it is evident that such emotional labor is needed; for example, journalists covering a hurricane suppressed and manufactured emotions when speaking with survivors (Dworznik-Hoak, 2022). Understanding educators’ views about the importance of teaching young journalists not only about proper reporting and interviewing techniques but also how to reduce risks to their most vulnerable sources are necessary to remedy the situation.

Community

In addition to a journalist’s awareness of interview practices, journalists need to recognize the impact of traumatic events on an impacted community and how to report on traumatic events in a manner that minimizes the negative impact. In a study on mass media framing of natural disasters, 26.32% of all stories included the description of the disasters’ impact on individuals, while 24.49% of all stories mentioned neighborhood and community impacts (Houston et al., 2012). First, journalists need to understand reactions to mass trauma, including ways such disasters reveal and intensify the community’s negative reactions, disparities among certain community members, and political divisions within the community. With the expansion in technology (e.g., social media), journalists are able to get information of varying accuracy at the scenes of disasters more readily (Barnes, 2015). During a tragedy, journalists themselves can be additional stressors to the community, perceived as invasive and, therefore, unwelcomed. For example, following the Columbine High School shooting, the community became hostile toward journalists, partly because of the “media mob” of more than 500 journalists who covered the tragedy for weeks, even months. Some reporters feared for their lives because of threats from community members (Anderson & Bourke, 2020; Moritz, 2001). Second, journalists need to understand the potential impact of their reporting on the community that they are serving, both benefits and harm. For example, benefits include journalists’ descriptions of the extent of damage after a catastrophe, and alerting agencies, community members, and broader society members about survivors’ needs and perspectives (Newman & Shapiro, 2014). Alternatively, headlines and images in the aftermath may not motivate public engagement but instead aggravate survivors’ distress or contribute to community fragmentation (Newman & Shapiro, 2014).

More information on the specific needs of journalism educators regarding trauma journalism is warranted. This might include the importance of developing a curriculum or practical exercises within the classroom. (e.g., Newman & Nelson, 2012). By understanding the needs of journalism educators in the areas of self-care, interviewing survivors, and the impact of the trauma itself on the community as well as best practices for reporting, teaching resources can be developed to aid curricular development. Therefore, the study’s primary aim was to assess and describe the training needs of journalism educators by investigating the following questions:

RQ1: What is the extent of trauma-related content taught in journalism courses?

RQ2: What are journalism instructors’ perceived importance of the content in the identified domains?

The domains for assessment included journalist self-care, trauma-informed interviewing, understanding the impact of trauma on the community, and implementing best journalistic practices to minimize any further negative impact.

Method

A mixed method was implemented to address the research questions. First, to understand the training needs of journalism students, educators from AEJMC were surveyed about topic coverage and the importance of class coverage regarding self-care, interviewing, and community impact. A subset of educators who agreed to participate in follow-up interviews were contacted to reflect on their experiences, opinions, and curriculum ideas.

Participants and Procedures

Four hundred seventy-four journalism educators were identified from the AEJMC membership list as teaching journalism courses and invited to participate in an anonymous online survey. To ensure anonymity, participants were not asked to provide their affiliations to minimize identifiable information. However, participants were provided with the opportunity to provide their email addresses to be contacted about follow-up interviews. Roughly 4.4% of participants agreed to be contacted. Of the 474 educators, 156 (32.9%) responses were received between March 21 and May 22, 2020. Only responses that met a survey completion rate of 75% or greater were retained for the final sample size (N = 95), shrinking the completion rate to 20%. The final sample of 95 included educators who taught courses in the areas of Journalism (76%), Communication (14%), and Mass Media (4%). Six percent of participants did not disclose their area of concentration.

Using the list of participants that provided their contact information, 21 educators were contacted for follow-up interviews. Ultimately, 12 educators completed a phone interview, with all teaching primarily journalism and/or journalism ethics courses. The remaining nine initially agreed to the interviews but did not show up, were unavailable, or refused to complete scheduled and rescheduled appointments. All but one of the 12 interviewed educators taught at U.S. universities, with one teaching at a university in the Middle East. Eleven were full-time faculty and one was a lecturer. Of this group, two were department heads at the time. All had worked in journalism, with most working previously for more than a decade at newspapers, magazines, or radio and TV stations, including national networks. Six had at least two decades of experience in various forms of journalism. Three said they had served as foreign or war correspondents. Of the educators, two had conducted research in trauma and journalism, and one had taught a class focusing on trauma coverage.

The Questionnaire: Measures

Participants were asked to provide the title of a course required by students majoring in journalism or communication. For the reported course listed, participants were asked to rate the importance of items within each of the three domains (self-care, interviewing, community impact) and the degree to which each item within the domains is covered. Definitions for each domain were created based on a literature review and were reviewed and evaluated by subject matter experts so that a consensus definition was formed. Self-care was defined as activities that help identify, respond to, and cope with general stress and the potentially traumatic stressors encountered during reporting, and interviewing was defined as trauma-informed interview techniques that support the victim in their recovery and create minimal disturbance to the interviewer. The community effect domain was subdivided into two categories to reflect knowledge and reporting, with knowledge referring to recognizing the impact of traumatic events upon a community and reporting referring to the reporting of traumatic events in a manner that minimizes the negative community impact.

Once there was consensus on domain definitions, the research team created a pool of items for each definition. Then, subject matter experts reviewed and rated the generated items by appropriateness, and those items with more than 80% agreement were retained.¹

For all domains, item importance was assessed on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 4 (critically important). To compare dimensions of importance, item responses were aggregated as “Important” by combining “Important” and “Critically Important” ratings. “Not important” combined the “not at all” and “somewhat” important ratings for each item. Similarly, item coverage for all domains was assessed on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all covered) to 4 (thoroughly covered). The self-care and interviewing domains were assessed using eight items; the community impact domain had two subcategories: (a) knowledge of the traumatic impact on the community measured by 6 items and (b) reporting practices to minimize further negative impact measured by four items (see Table 1). The degree to which each item was covered was rated as not at all covered, somewhat covered, covered, and thoroughly covered. Item responses were aggregated on coverage by combining “Covered” and “Thoroughly Covered” to designate “Covered, and “Not covered” included the “not at all” and the “somewhat” covered ratings. Items from each domain were examined to evaluate patterns of endorsement.

Table 1.

Educators Ratings of Importance and Coverage of Trauma-Related Topics (N = 95).

Domain	Items	% important	% covered	% important not covered
Self-care	Coping with stress	78.49	50.00	33.33
	Seeking social support, when needed	79.12	36.96	46.15
	Recognizing one’s own emotional limits	79.12	42.86	38.46
	Taking breaks from work within work periods	72.53	34.78	41.76
	Taking care of your own sleep and nutrition	76.67	35.16	42.22
	Avoiding substance abuse or social withdrawal when stressed	79.55	25.84	53.41
	Engaging in relaxing activities when stressed	71.11	25.27	45.56
	Balancing work and non-work roles	76.92	36.26	41.76
Interviewing	Helping a subject feel at ease in an interview	89.89	87.80	6.74
	Allowing subjects to speak off the record	73.33	69.51	13.33
	Treating survivors of trauma with dignity and respect	91.86	80.72	12.64
	Identifying yourself as a journalist	94.44	95.18	2.22
	Encouraging victims to ask questions	72.41	43.21	27.59
	Not pushing for evocative quote(s) if it means risking the permanent health of the source	83.72	57.83	24.14
	Reviewing interview content with the subject and allowing them to redact details they prefer to omit	36.90	37.50	10.71
	Avoiding phrases like “I know how you feel” or expressing hope for “closure”	63.95	53.66	17.24
Community effect—Knowledge	Acknowledging that following a tragedy, communities are faced with additional outside stressors (e.g., parachute journalists)	82.05	51.90	29.49
	Understanding that political variables exist in the aftermath of tragedy (e.g., legislation, gun control, healthcare policy)	82.28	47.44	34.18
	Acknowledging that a community that experiences trauma together may close itself off to journalists	78.48	48.05	29.11
	Acknowledging that communities fracture in their opinions and stances on local tragedy	68.75	41.03	28.75
	Acknowledging how social media can affect a community coping after a tragedy	76.54	51.28	25.93
	Recognizing that under-served, minority, and/or stigmatized groups may suffer disproportionately or in unique ways	87.65	63.29	23.46
Community effect—Reporting	Writing stories about victims’ lives and their effect on the community	89.47	81.58	10.53
	Reporting on how communities help one another in the aftermath of tragedy	81.82	61.84	22.08
	Being sensitive when using photographs belonging to those affected by tragedy	93.51	81.82	11.69
	Reporting stories accurately	97.40	98.72	0.00

Note. Importance and coverage were rated on a 4-point scale. Percentage of importance combined those who endorsed “important” or “critically important” as rating response. The percentage coverage item rating combined those participants’ who rated “covered” and “thoroughly covered.”

The Interviews: Method

Semi-structured interviews were conducted over the phone by three mass communication studies upper-division students. The interviews were designed to help contextualize the questionnaire results. For consistency, each educator was asked by questions about: (a) the length of time as a journalist educator and topics taught; (b) their personal experience covering trauma, and its impact in their workplaces before they became educators; (c) flaws, if any, in current journalistic practices; (d) main issues students should be prepared for in the future; (e) whether they taught anything specific about trauma, coverage of violence and tragedy, and what were their best practices if they did; and (f) whether they thought trauma-specific curriculum in journalism or mass communication should be added or mandatory at their universities. All the interviews were transcribed; Two of the authors (JH, EN) abstracted themes related to each question. For this report, we focused particularly on views about mandatory training in trauma as well as activities and resources used to educate students about coverage of violence and tragedy.

Results

The Questionnaire

Items Rated as Important and Frequently Covered

We examined items within each domain that were most frequently rated important and covered. Items from each domain were examined to evaluate patterns of endorsement (Table 1). Four items that were most frequently marked as covered were also most frequently marked as important: reporting stories accurately” (97% important; 99% covered), “Identifying yourself as a journalist” (94% important; 95% covered), “Helping a subject feel at ease in an interview” (90% important; 88%; covered), and “Being sensitive when using photographs belonging to those affected by tragedy” (94% important; 82% covered).

Items rated as Important and Frequently Not Covered

Finally, the items rated as most important but not covered across all domains were identified (Table 1). The five items most frequently marked as important but not covered belonged in the self-care domain. These included “Avoiding substance abuse or social withdrawal when stressed (53% marked important but not covered), “engaging in relaxing activities when stressed” (46%), “Seeking social support when needed” (46%), “Taking care of your own sleep and nutrition” (42%), and “Balancing work and non-work roles.”

The Interviews

Although participants were not queried specifically about the four domains in the survey, several addressed these domains naturally.

Self-Care

One respondent remarked on the importance of covering

self-care, which a lot of people when they hear the words self-care makes them all cringy, but I think that it’s a good idea to talk about ways to decompress and cope with the stress of on-the-job trauma. So I guess another word for self-care would be healthy coping mechanism.

Another stressed the importance of preparing students for witnessing gruesome acts or experiencing their own reminders of traumatic events.

I mean, journalists have seen people killed in front of them. And that’s not something to be taken lightly. So yeah, I want to prepare them for that. I also want to prepare them for things like reporting on sexual assault and rape, because one in five women have been exposed to some kind of sexual assault. And so reporting on those kind—and men are exposed to it too. And so journalists need to be prepared to deal with stories like that that might bring up traumatic memories, traumatic situations that they might be in. . . . So it’s incumbent on us as professors to prepare our students for that.

Another suggested a strategy used by a colleague in bringing in a mental health expert from the counseling center to discuss how to handle traumatic stress. One suggested having “candid conversations” with students to counter stigma about mental health problems, including topics involving trauma and crises. In stressing the importance of trauma education, at least two of the educators talked about a “very nervous, very unsure generation” of future journalists who need training on what they will encounter. One emphasized the importance of keeping “good people in this profession.” “I’m the poster child for how to do it wrong. I left daily newspaper reporting. I did go back for a short time, so I exorcised my demons,” the educator said. We need future journalists to learn how to deal with what they are encountering so they can “stay optimistic, stay healthy, and be able to stay in the business for the long term.”

Interviewing

With respect to interviewing, several educators discussed the importance of empathy—“the overall emphasis is that journalists are supposed to have empathy and it’s okay to show emotion, even though it was drilled in our heads for years and years . . . . You have to be objective. You can’t take a side, dah-dah-dah.” Several focused on “how to interview victims, how to interview children, how to interview people who might be in shock. Those sorts of things” including “what to leave in and what to leave out of stories involving them” and how to be “genuine.” One mentioned the need to “try to understand people instead of just treating them like some kind of a, ‘oh, I just need information from you so I can write my story.’”

One suggested that it is useful not only to bring in guest speakers who are journalists but

talk to victims and victims’ families to hear maybe the positive experiences that they’ve had with journalists but also the negative ones and why they were negative ones and what they would have liked, how they would have liked to be treated differently.

One educator teaches the importance of explaining situations to victims, reading back quotes and distinguishing between public officials and “a private person who maybe has never been in an interview.”

Community- Knowledge and Reporting

One educator reported that understanding the trajectory of mass disaster was important to convey to students:

And then the fourth thing the I learned in my work after this is this idea of the cycle, and the way a disaster unfolds and the psychological effects of it with the honeymoon period and the disillusionment and the up and down, and the up and down, and the trigger events. And I want them to understand that cycle so that they don’t concentrate all of their coverage in the immediate aftermath which is the impact, the horrible thing that happens and then after, whether and again, in my research, is a specific school shooting, but that can (also) be a hurricane, that can be coronavirus.

Another stated that students must learn to go beyond the typical crime story to see the impact on the people and community, and how journalism can become “part of the resilience and the recovery.” Educators discussed stressing issues with usage of the perpetrators’ names, photos, and names in headlines and social media.

Another shared a technique in using case studies to allow students to think about the impact of news choices on the community:

What I like to do a lot is switch the cases in small ways so that it will cause a switch and thought. So I can show a graphic photo that was controversial and students may largely– I take policy classes, and most of them may say, “Oh, I never would have run that.” And then I’ll put up the famous Charles Porter Oklahoma City photo of the firefighter with the child. And they’ll say, no, because they’re familiar with it. They know it’s gruesome, but they’ll say, “Run it,” and I’ll say, “Why? What’s different?” Right. So what I’ll do with that is we’ll talk about leaving the scenes and being sensitive and this and that. Then I’ll put up a video from Newtown of a young kid being interviewed and say, “Are you going to interview this child?”

General Trauma- Pedagogical Strategies

Many different approaches were mentioned. At least two educators specifically mentioned selecting specific coverage of past mass disasters. For example, one stated,

And most of the time I stick with Columbine, Virginia Tech, 9/11, and then sometimes I’ll throw in a couple of other ones. But those are the ones that I feel like we can learn the most from looking at what went right, what went wrong. And that’s kind of how I structure it.

Others look for current news stories, such as

Right now, I’ve been bookmarking a whole bunch of stories about all the journalists who have been attacked during the protests, right? I mean how many times they’ve been targeted, how many times they’ve been arrested by police, those kinds of things. And so I change up a lot of those readings every semester.

Others mentioned the use of simulations, scenarios, and real-world examples, or the creation of a “crash book-basically an annual of who you would call in the event there is a major disaster.” Another includes active shooting training in a course.

Of the 12 interviews where the responses were recorded about mandatory training, all were in favor of trauma training, although many inconsistencies emerged. For example, two of the educators who said it should not be mandatory ultimately expressed the necessity of covering trauma in courses:

So, there are some things we have to do and things that we are assessed on, right? And so we’re assessed on visual competencies, right, and writing competencies and diversity competencies. And . . . we’re assessed on all these things and it’s not like I’m a fan of adding one more bullet point that we have to do, but I think the recognition that that’s maybe a place where [trauma] recognition could start, right?

Some of those educators in favor also recognized the difficulties. For example,

I think it would be a great idea if there were at least some class content that was mandatory for journalism majors. Now, I don’t think it is feasible for a lot of colleges to have an entire course dedicated to trauma journalism, so I wouldn’t necessarily say that that’s a great idea, just because I don’t think it would be possible. But in terms of having some content, or a unit in a particular class dedicated to this topic, I think it would be a great idea, and I’d love to see more of that.

There were other inconsistencies as well that were less articulated. For instance, one educator who was strongly in favor of mandatory training later discussed that they did not teach trauma in all classes. One educator stated it was important but only addressed in general classes if the assignments involved trauma. Another who believed in the importance stated that it was never in a lesson plan but came up “organically” in case studies. Another stated that it always comes up in all classes, but “I wish we had a little more systematic way of doing it.” One added, “But it’s really something you have to make time for and deliberately put in your curriculum if you want to get anything out of it.”

Two educators suggested that it should be or is taught as part of ethics courses. One stated, “They should not be traumatizing the people they’re covering.” Another educator suggested that it be part of a unit on basic reporting such that others could build on that later in the curriculum. The importance also extends to public relations professionals who need to hear about the issues in covering trauma, so they know how to deal with it themselves and not make it worse on media professionals covering the event, one educator said. Hence, everyone agreed it should be part of the curriculum, but the emphasis, requirement, extent, and placement of material were wide-ranging. Perhaps this educator summed up the tension best:

So, in a perfect world, yes [trauma training] should be mandatory]. But I don’t want it to be if we’re only going to teach it in a perfect world because we’re not in a perfect world. And we can also make decisions as teachers. There may be classes in mind as a good example where you can spend some time on it as a stand-alone subject. So, yeah. I mean, perfect world, yes. But in our world, let’s do as much as we can and integrate it as best we can.

Discussion

This study examined the degree to which topics of self-care, trauma-informed interviewing, trauma impact on the community, and best community reporting practices are covered and rated as important among educators affiliated with AEJMC. The items that had the highest frequencies of importance and coverage rankings were about the potential impact of trauma-related reporting on the community. Furthermore, while self-care was deemed important to teach, it was often not covered in university courses. Detailed analyses of each domain with implications are described below.

Self-Care Domain

The self-care domain had the widest discrepancy between importance and coverage items: engaging in relaxing activities when stressed; avoiding substance abuse or social withdrawal when stressed; seeking social support; recognizing emotional limits, taking work breaks; sleep and nutrition; and work-life balance. Hence, while deemed vital to journalism education, educators were not covering these topics in their courses. Interestingly, the smallest gap between importance and coverage existed in areas such as “coping with stress,” “identifying signs of distress in interview subjects” and “understanding that trauma exposure can have temporary and/or lasting effects on journalists.” The pattern of results suggests that respondents likely don’t know how to teach specific information about occupational well-being and health. Journalism educators may worry about providing incorrect or outdated information about mental health or feel uncomfortable advising students about stress management. In fact, the results demonstrate that educators offer general advice about coping without explaining specific practices. Educators appear to regularly invite journalists to the classroom to de-stigmatize mental health issues and tell individual stories about occupational challenges and solutions, but there is no overall science-informed strategy.

It is quite likely that journalism professors feel unequipped and uncomfortable in discussing self-care, coping, and emotions that are not directly tied to practical coverage skills. Concerns about privacy and lack of training in healthy coping and self-care may prevent educators from addressing these concerns. Furthermore, journalism educators may erroneously perceive that discussing emotions is equivalent to discussing mental health disorders. This lack of covering self-care topics despite valuing their importance is consistent with previous findings about emotional labor and emotional literacy (e.g., Dworznik-Hoak, 2022; Richards & Rees, 2011) in journalism. For example, reviewed journalism textbooks that discuss the implications of emotions for reporting, have little information about what to do when a journalist experiences negative emotions when working on a story (Hopper & Huxford, 2017). However, the negative occupational health costs of emotional labor and monitoring negative emotions are high (e.g., Dworznik-Hoak, 2022) so that prevention needs to be communicated to early professionals. Potential remedies include classroom discussion of the psychological cost of journalists not expressing emotions (e.g., Richards & Rees, 2011), specific coping tips, and de-stigmatizing normal reactions to work. Specifically, teaching new journalists that emotional awareness can enhance balanced reporting and accuracy rather than detract may enhance self-awareness and self-care. Inviting experts on traumatic stress to be guest speakers, team-teach, and/or consult on self-care content is one possibility to expand the curriculum in this area.

Interviewing Domain

The trauma-focused interviewing domain had a narrow discrepancy between importance (76%) and coverage (66%). Topics that were rated both as important and covered were identifying oneself as a journalist, treating victims with dignity and respect, and respecting that private citizens have a greater right than public officials to control personal information. However, slightly larger discrepancies in importance and coverage were observed for the trauma-specific interviewing techniques and concepts. The statement “reviewing interview content with the subject and allowing them to redact details they prefer to omit” created the widest gap and is likely the most controversial in the field. The pattern of endorsement suggests that topics that are consistent with traditional journalistic ethics (e.g., Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007) are readily covered, but educators may need more resources focusing specifically on trauma-informed interviewing and ethical behavior in covering tragedy. In fact, the current survey results coincide with research from over a decade ago, in which students enrolled in higher-level journalism courses indicated they were not taught how to avoid causing further harm to interview subjects and family members (Dworznik & Grubb, 2007).

There are many reasons that this has not changed over time. Although the ethical standards of minimizing harm have remained consistent, no specific accreditation standards or training competencies about trauma-informed interviewing and coverage is required at accredited journalism schools. Fear, discomfort, and avoidance may contribute to educators avoiding practical techniques to reduce harm to sources (Newman & Nelson, 2012). Educators and journalists may fear that trauma-informed practices, which offer more choice to vulnerable sources, will undermine traditional practices of truth-finding used when interviewing those in power. An additional study might reveal the important differences in how journalists should treat public officials as compared with vulnerable trauma survivors. An educator’s discomfort with the topic may be overcome with additional teacher training. Consultation from mental health and/or journalism experts in trauma-specific interviewing also may be particularly useful in developing such a trauma-focused interviewing curriculum. With respect to combating avoidance, one practical technique suggested by Newman and Nelson (2012) involves teaching students about approach and avoidance as a consequence of trauma and then having journalism students examine moments in transcripts where interviewers demonstrated problematic approach and avoidance of trauma-related topics.

Community Effect Domain

Knowledge about the traumatic impact of an affected community was deemed important by 79% of the educators sampled, with 51% indicating it was part of the curriculum (Community effect, knowledge subcategory). This discrepancy suggests the need for more general trauma education among journalist educators. Despite journalism educators not covering general information about the traumatic impact on communities, most valued and taught about reporting on traumatic events in a manner that minimizes harm. In particular, accurate reporting, sensitivity to photography of violence and destruction, and depiction of victims’ lives were topics regularly taught. These results suggest that curricular tools enhancing knowledge about traumatic events anchored to these highly valued topics about reporting on life-threatening events might be best received and used.

Limitations

Although this study provides useful information about the curricular values and needs of journalism educators, several limitations exist. First, the sample size and completion rate of 20% may limit generalizability to all AEJMC-affiliated programs. Given that the “somewhat” category for both importance and coverage was counted as “not covered,” the results may underestimate the amount of brief coverage in courses. Next, while the topics assessed are comprehensive, the survey did not query all aspects of trauma-informed journalism. Specific trauma-informed practice for sexual assault or children for example were not explored. Future studies that examine syllabi carefully can provide more detailed information. It would be helpful for future interviews to ask educators to comment on the observed discrepancies specifically. Finally, the survey’s emphasis was slightly more focused on mass disasters, and future studies should be more inclusive of interpersonal and individual trauma-related news.

Conclusion

The survey and subsequent research revealed the lack of across-the-board standards and inconsistencies at accredited institutions in how college students are taught and trained to handle and deal with the impact of trauma coverage. It was found that when trauma-related instruction is taught, the most taught and valued topics include the basics about ethics of accuracy, identifying oneself as a journalist, general sensitivity, respect for trauma survivors, and private citizens’ rights. Although educators want to teach about self-care and rate it as important, fewer educators cover with specificity how journalism students can take care of themselves. Educators also believe self-care and community sensitivity are essential, but those topics are not always covered. This pattern suggests that many of the covered topics are likely more general ethical content than trauma-specific content. Furthermore, although educators believe self-care and community sensitivity are essential, those topics are not always covered. Curriculum resources, shared syllabi, online videos, and other materials may all enhance trauma-focused journalism education. But it will be equally important that academic institutions which offer journalism and mass communication courses recognize the importance of trauma-based education and curricula in the future and their ethical obligations in providing that education.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Bret Arnold at The University of Tulsa for his contributions in survey development and to Zoie Hing, Galveston Suazo, and Anna Astley at the University of Central Oklahoma for identifying AEJMC members and conducting the interviews.

Authors’ Note

Ilissa Madrigal is now at IDEA Public Schools, Weslaco, TX, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding was provided to Hight’s Trauma Journey Research Project that initiated the study by the UCO Office of Research & Sponsored Programs in the Academic Affairs Department, UCO’s Mass Communication Department and the Edith Kinney Gaylord Journalism Ethics Endowment, UCO Foundation.

ORCID iD

Elana Newman

Notes

Author Biographies

Elana Newman, PhD, is the McFarlin Professor of psychology and Affiliate Faculty in Media Studies, University of Tulsa; research director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma; and a co-director of the University of Tulsa Institute of Trauma, Adversity and Injustice. She has published over 100 articles and book chapters on traumatic stress and disaster mental health, co-edited one book on trauma interventions, and has delivered over 400 keynotes, trainings, webinars, and scholarly talks about trauma. Her current scholarly work in journalism and trauma focuses on surveying and defining the field, the occupational health of journalists, analysis of trauma news, the effects of journalistic practice upon consumers, and victims’ reactions to being covered in the news.

Ilissa Madrigal earned her master’s degree in industrial-organizational psychology from The University of Tulsa in 2020 where she focused on employee well-being, work-stress recovery, and leadership. She is currently employed as an evaluator in the IDEA Public schools.

Joe Hight is the Edith Kinney Gaylord Endowed Chair of Journalism Ethics at the University of Central Oklahoma. Author of “Unnecessary Sorrow” and lead writer/editor of “Our Greatest Journalists,” he is considered a cofounder of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, an international organization based at Columbia University. He also is the director and a member of the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame, an editor who led a Pulitzer Prize-winning project, and president/owner of Best of Books in Edmond, OK.

References

Amend

Kay

Reilly

R. C.

(2012). Journalism on the spot: Ethical dilemmas when covering trauma and the implications for journalism education. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 27(4), 235–247.

Anderson

Bourke

(2020). Teaching collegiate journalists how to cover traumatic events using moral development theory. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 75(2), 233–246.

Barnes

(2015). Trauma training in Australia and New Zealand: Necessary but confusing. Australian Journalism Review, 37(1), 121–131.

Beam

R. A.

Spratt

(2009). Managing vulnerability: Job satisfaction, morale and journalists’ reactions to violence and trauma. Journalism Practice, 3(4), 421–438.

Buchanan

Keats

(2011). Coping with traumatic stress in journalism: A critical ethnographic study. International Journal of Psychology, 46(2), 127–135.

Dufresne

(2004). Teaching about trauma. Quill, 92(6), 29.

Dworznik

G. J.

Garvey

(2019). Are we teaching trauma? A survey of accredited journalism schools in the United States. Journalism Practice, 13(3), 367–382.

Dworznik

G. J.

Grubb

(2007). Preparing for the worst: Making a case for trauma training in the journalism classroom. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 62, 190–210.

Dworznik-Hoak

(2022). Emotional labor during disaster coverage: Exploring expectations for emotional display. Journalism Practice, 16(5), 864–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1816858

10.

Ewart

McLean

(2019). Best practice approaches for reporting disasters. Journalism, 20(12), 1573–1592. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918757130

11.

Feinstein

Owen

Blair

(2002). A hazardous profession: War, journalism, and psychopathology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 1570–1576.

12.

Gutkowska

M. R.

(2005). The impact of reporting traumatic events on journalists and photojournalists: A training program for students of journalism (Order No. 3259762) [Doctoral dissertation, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

13.

Hill

Luther

C. A.

Slocum

(2020). Preparing future journalists for trauma on the job. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 75(1), 64–68.

14.

Hopper

K. M.

Huxford

(2017). Emotion instruction in journalism courses: An analysis of introductory news writing textbooks. Communication Education, 66(1), 90–108.

15.

Houston

J. B.

Pfefferbaum

Rosenholtz

C. E.

(2012). Disaster news: Framing and frame changing in coverage of major U.S. natural disasters, 2000-2010. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699012456022

16.

Jones

(2021). Caring with the public: An Integration of feminist moral, environmental, and political philosophy in journalism ethics. Journal of Media Ethics, 35(2), 74–84.

17.

Kovach

Rosenstiel

(2007). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect. Three Rivers Press.

18.

Lee

Ha Hye

Pae Kun

(2018). The exposure to traumatic events and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder among Korean journalists. Journalism, 19, 1308–1325.

19.

Lepre

C. R.

Luther

C. A.

(2007). The incorporation of terrorism coverage in academic journalism programs. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 61(4), 361–377.

20.

Marais

Stuart

A. D.

(2005). The role of temperament in the development of post-traumatic stress disorder amongst journalists. South African Journal of Psychology, 35(1), 89–105.

21.

Maxson

(2000). Training journalism students to deal with trauma: Observing reporters behave like “creeps.” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 55, 79–86.

22.

McMahon

(2001). Covering disaster: A pilot study into secondary trauma for print media journalists reporting on disaster. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 16(2), 52–56.

23.

Melki

J. P.

Fromm

M. E.

Mihailidis

Fromm

Maksl

Moeller

Fromm

M. E.

(2013). Trauma journalism education: Teaching merits, curricular challenges, and instructional approaches. Journalism Education, 2, 62–75.

24.

Miller

N. S.

(2021, July 1). Self-care tips for journalists – plus a list of several resources. The Journalist’s Resource. https://journalistsresource.org/home/self-care-tips-for-journalists-plus-a-list-of-several-resources/

25.

Monteiro

Pinto

(2017). Journalists’ occupational stress: A comparative study between reporting critical events and domestic news. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20, 1–17.

26.

Moritz

(Writer & Producer). (2001). Covering Columbine [Film]. University of Colorado. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3aUo89yjFI&feature=youtu.be

27.

Newman

(2001). The bridge between sorrow and knowledge: Journalists and traumatic stress. In Danieli

(Ed.), Sharing the front line and the back hills: International interveners: Peacekeepers, humanitarian aid workers and the media in the midst of crisis (pp. 305–315). United Nations.

28.

Newman

Nelson

(2012). Reporting on resilience and recovery in the face of disaster and crime: Research and training implications. Australian Journalism Review, 34(1), 17–32.

29.

Newman

Shapiro

(2014). Clinicians and journalists responding to disasters. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 24(1), 32–38.

30.

Newman

Simpson

Handschuh

(2003). Trauma exposure and post-traumatic stress disorder among photojournalists. Visual Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 4–13.

31.

Ochberg

(1996). A primer on covering victims. Nieman Reports, 50(3), 21–26.

32.

Ogunyemi

Akanuwe

(2021). Should journalism curricula include trauma resilience training? An evaluation of the evidence from a scoping literature review and a pilot study. Journalism Educator, 10(1), 34–45.

33.

Pyevich

C. M.

Newman

Daleiden

(2003). The relationship among cognitive schemas, job-related traumatic exposure, and posttraumatic stress disorder in journalists. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16(4), 325–328.

34.

Richards

Rees

. (2011). The management of emotion in British journalism. Media, Culture & Society, 33(6), 851–867.

35.

Seely

(2019). Fostering trauma literacy: From the classroom to the newsroom. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 75, 116–130.

36.

Simpson

(2004). Journalism and trauma: A long overdue conjunction. Nieman Reports, 58(2), 77–79.

37.

Simpson

Boggs

(1999). An exploratory study of traumatic stress among newspaper journalists. Journalism and Communication Monographs, 1, 1–24.

38.

Smith

Nelson

Newman

(2017). Covering traumatic news stories: Factors associated with PTSD among journalists. Stress and Health, 34(2), 218–226.

39.

Teegen

Grotwinkel

(2001). Traumatic exposure and post-traumatic stress disorder of journalists: An internet-based study. Psychotherapeut, 46, 169–175.

40.

Weidmann

Fehm

Fydrich

(2008). Covering the tsunami disaster: Subsequent post-traumatic and depressive symptoms and associated social factors. Stress and Health, 24, 129–135.

41.

Weidmann

Papsdorf

(2010). Witnessing trauma in the newsroom: Posttraumatic symptoms in television journalists exposed to violent news clips. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198, 264–271.

42.

Weiss

(2013). The trauma ed gap: Demand high, supply low. DART Center for Journalism & Trauma. https://dartcenter.org/content/new-study-high-demand-for-trauma-training