Journalists’ emotional reactions after working with the Jokela school shooting incident

Abstract

Journalists’ psychological distress after working with the Jokela school shooting incident was examined with a mixed methods research design using a sample of 196 journalists (27 on the scene, 169 working indirectly with the crisis). Quantitative results were compared to those of a control group of 297 journalists. Results from the quantitative data showed that in all journalists investigated, a minority indicated a level of PTSD, depression, secondary traumatic stress and burnout sufficient for being labeled as belonging to an ‘at risk’ subgroup. However, no significant group differences were found. In regard to journalists working with the shooting, previous personal traumatic exposure significantly predicted more distress due to the assignment, while work-related exposure did not. An analysis of qualitative data showed that the incident provoked work-related ethical difficulties, as well as a range of personal post-trauma reactions in journalists. The criticism of journalists after the incident provoked additional personal stress in a group of journalists.

Keywords

burnout depression Jokela school shooting journalism PTSD secondary traumatic stress trauma history

Introduction

In the course of just one year, Finnish society was shocked by two separate school shootings. In both cases, the perpetrator was a male student who opened fire on his fellow students. The first shooting occurred in Jokela in southern Finland in November 2007, when the perpetrator killed eight people and then took his own life. A similar event took place in September 2008 in Kauhajoki in the western part of the country, when 11 people lost their lives, including the perpetrator. The Jokela incident was the first school shooting in Finland since 1989 and the first one to be broadly covered by media worldwide. It took Finnish authorities by surprise, and the national media were not prepared for handling a sudden crisis of this kind (Ministry of Justice, 2009: 97–102; National Bureau of Investigation, 2009: 1-2; Raittila et al., 2008: 12–14).

This study examines journalists’ emotional reactions, after working with the first shooting incident in Jokela, from a psychological viewpoint. The sample includes journalists working on the scene of the shooting as well as those working indirectly with the incident from an office or in other regions of the country.

To date, research on journalists’ psychological reactions after work-related exposure to a school shooting has been very limited. In the case of the two Finnish school shootings, Raittila et al. (2008: 35–50, 76–79) and Raittila et al. (2009: 11–21) have touched on the topic in interviews with journalists. Journalists interviewed after the Jokela shooting (2007) reported work-related problems, such as frustration caused by the slow response from authorities, being under pressure from their head office, or stress caused by tight deadlines and malfunctioning equipment. Also, more personal reactions were mentioned, such as worry about feeling empathy for the victims and how to interview victims/eyewitnesses without causing further distress.

An article on the primary school shooting in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, mentions the personal impact on the journalists involved (Berrington and Jemphrey, 2003: 239–242). Journalists from the affected region, who had their own children or had had many contacts with the bereaved, felt more emotional involvement in the crisis. The onset of personal reactions was usually some time after working with the tragedy, and the reactions reported included exhaustion, depression, and inadequacy in supporting the bereaved.

After the shooting in Jokela, members of the local community reacted strongly towards what was experienced as unethical journalistic behavior on the scene, when hundreds of journalists invaded the community. In Finland, ethical best practices within journalism are regulated mainly by national legislation and the Council for Mass Media (Council for Mass Media in Finland, 2008: 1). The Council is sanctioned by virtually all national actors within the profession. Anyone can file a complaint, and the Council then conducts an investigation. In cases where best practices have been violated, the investigated media organization is obliged to publish a correction in its media product.

In the Jokela case, however, most of the public dissatisfaction was not stated via the Council control function. Instead, people were asked to sign a petition posted on the internet calling for a change in journalistic practice (Korhonen and Pulsa, 2007, personal communication;¹ Raittila et al., 2008: 166–188). Over the course of two weeks, over 2000 signatures were collected. This criticism was widely highlighted in the Finnish mass media and within the profession, and research has shown that it became a sensitive issue for Finnish journalism. The journalists who were being criticized responded with reactions such as shame, understanding, frustration or anger (Juntunen, 2009: 31–36; Raittila et al., 2008: 171–188; Raittila et al., 2009: 11–21, 111–117).

Expanding research on journalists’ reactions beyond school shootings into other work-related traumatic exposure, Brayne (2007: 10–11) and Smith and Newman (2009: 1) have pointed out that most journalists cope well with work-related exposure. However, a minority of journalists might experience severe reactions after being exposed to various types of crises (for an overview, see Smith and Newman, 2009: 1–3). Symptoms such as PTSD (Feinstein et al., 2002: 1572; Pyevich et al., 2003: 328; Simpson and Boggs, 1999: 17–18), depression (McMahon, 2001: 53–54; Weidmann et al., 2008: 134–135) and compassion fatigue (Backholm and Björkqvist, 2010: 146–148; Dworznik, 2008: 128–139) have been reported in studies of journalistic work in various types of crises. Also, a higher overall number of work-related (Marais and Stuart, 2005: 101; Simpson and Boggs, 1999: 17–18) or personal life traumatic exposure (Backholm and Björkqvist, 2010: 146–148; Pyevich et al., 2003: 327–328), or exposure at work to more intense crises (Dworznik, 2008: 137) have been shown to have a negative impact on the psychological well-being of journalists.

The current study investigates how working with the school shooting in Jokela was experienced by journalists, concurrently combining quantitative and qualitative research methods (Creswell and Zhang, 2009: 612–621; Miles and Hubermann, 1994: 40–43). The aim of the study is to provide an insight into how the unique working situation of journalists can affect their psychological well-being when they are exposed to an unexpected large-scale crisis within their own society. The following issues are raised:

Do journalists working with the school shooting, on the scene or indirectly, experience higher rates of psychological post-trauma distress than journalists not working with the incident?

Does previous work-related or personal exposure to trauma have an impact on a journalist’s experience of working with a school shooting?

How do the journalists describe, in their own words, working with the school shooting incident from a work-related and private life perspective?

Method

The study was conducted as a part of a larger study, investigating lifetime traumatic exposure in Finnish news journalists (Backholm and Björkqvist, 2010: 140–143). At the planned time for contacting journalists for the study, the school shooting in Jokela took place. As a response to the incident, the authors remodeled the original survey by adding a section specifically designed for journalists working with the school shooting incident.

Participants

A database with contact information for practically all Finnish news journalists was compiled by gathering email addresses from the internet and media products, and contacting media organizations as well as the Union of Journalists in Finland. Newspaper, radio, television and web journalists, at a national and regional level, were included in the study but, due to difficulties with finding relevant contact information, freelance journalists were excluded.

The survey was sent out via email in spring 2008, 5 months after the school shooting. In addition, a link to the survey was posted on the website of the Union of Journalists in Finland, and was also published in the Union member newspaper (Journalisti, 2008: 24). During the 2-week survey completion period, 493 news journalists participated in the Jokela-related study. Of these, 40 per cent (n = 196) indicated that they had been working with the Jokela incident; they are hereafter referred to as the ‘worked with Jokela’ group; 14 per cent (n = 27) of the ‘worked with Jokela’ subset indicated working on the scene, and the remaining 86 per cent (n = 169) had been working indirectly with the shooting, either from their office or by carrying out regional work in their part of the country. Of the sample, 60 per cent (n = 297) had not dealt with the crisis. This group is hereafter called the ‘did not work with Jokela’ group, and is used as a control in the study. The number of participants working on the scene was rather small, partly reflecting the real-life situation of media organizations where, in a crisis, relatively few journalists are sent out to the scene. The group size also reflects the overall sample design of the study, where Finnish news journalists in general were approached, not just journalists working on the Jokela incident.

Of the total sample, 48 per cent were male and 52 per cent female. The gender distribution differed significantly between groups (χ²(1) = 4.13, p = .04), as the ‘worked with Jokela’ group consisted of 42 per cent males and 58 per cent females, while figures for the ‘did not work with Jokela’ group were 51 per cent males and 49 per cent females. The age range for the whole sample was 23–69 years, mean age 44 years (SD = 11.2), and there was a significant age difference between genders (t(491) = 6.34, p < .001), men having a higher mean age (47 years, SD = 11.1) than women (41 years, SD = 10.5). This age difference was also found within both subgroups. Accordingly, gender and age were controlled for in the following analyses.

The majority of the participating journalists (58%) were employed by newspapers, 18 per cent by radio stations, 17 per cent by television news channels, 2 per cent reported on the internet, and 4 per cent did not provide any data.

Quantitative measures

Symptoms of PTSD, depression and compassion fatigue were studied, and questionnaires used were the 17-item PTSD Checklist, Civilian Version (PCL-C) (Weathers et al., 1993: 1–3), the 13-item Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-13) (Beck and Beck, 1972: 81–85), and the Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL IV) (Stamm, 2005: 1–16, 2010a: 12–18). Stamm (2010b: 1) defines the concept compassion fatigue as including two separate parts that should be measured: burnout and secondary traumatic stress. An overview of the concept and how it is related to other trauma-related symptoms is provided in Figure 1, and most current information is provided on the www.proqol.org webpage. In the ProQOL, 10 items measure secondary traumatic stress and 10 items focus on symptoms of burnout. The third subscale, compassion satisfaction, was left out of the study due to reasons of survey length. Cronbach’s α was used for measuring reliability (internal consistency), and can be found in Table 1 in the Results section. To achieve acceptable reliability in the ProQOL burnout subscale, items 15 and 29 were deleted.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue, provided by Stamm (2010b) and reproduced with permission. For most current information, see also the www.proqol.org webpage. In the current study, symptoms of primary (PCL-C) and secondary (ProQOL) exposure, as well as depression (BDI-13) and burnout (ProQOL) were measured.

Table 1.

Reliability, means and standard deviations (SDs) of scales and percentages scoring as at risk within the groups studied.

	Number of respondents	Cronbach’s α	Mean (SD)	Range	At risk within groups (%)
PTSD	155¹	.91¹	25.7 (9.0)¹	17 – 57¹	12 (n = 19)¹
	257²	.91²	24.4 (8.5)²	17 – 57²	9 (n = 24)²
	412³	.91³	24.9 (8.7)³	17 – 57³
Depression	196¹	.81¹	2.3 (2.8)¹	0 – 17¹	5 (n = 9)¹
	297²	.84²	2.5 (3.1)²	0 – 17²	8 (n = 23)²
	493³	.83³	2.4 (3.0)³	0 – 17³
Secondary traumatic stress	157¹	.74¹	11.1 (5.2)¹	2 – 32¹	30 (n = 47)¹
	257²	.77²	10.1 (5.4)²	0 – 27²	27 (n = 68)²
	414³	.76³	10.5 (5.4)³	0 – 32³
Burnout	157¹	.70¹	14.6 (4.5)¹	5 – 26¹	25 (n = 39)¹
	257²	.77²	14.5 (5.2)²	5 – 32²	27 (n = 70)²
	414³	.74³	14.6 (4.9)³	5 – 32³

= ‘Worked with Jokela’ group

= ‘Did not work with Jokela’ group

= Total sample

PTSD measured by the PTSD Checklist – Civilian Version (PCL-C)

Depression measured by the 13-item Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-13)

Secondary traumatic stress and burnout measured by the Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL IV)

Previous exposure to work-related as well as personal crises were measured, with the Journalist Trauma Exposure Scale (JTES) (Pyevich, 2001: 45) for work-related exposure and the Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire (TLEQ) (Kubany et al., 2000: 210–224) for personal experiences. In both questionnaires, range of exposure, not actual number of experiences, was measured, by indicating types of relevant experiences. Response alternatives were limited to yes/no. The JTES was divided into working ‘on the scene’ (OTS) or ‘indirectly’ (ID) with an event, and the maximum number of possible events was 14 on each subscale. Regarding the TLEQ, 18 items were used. The JTES and TLEQ subscales measure varying types of possible exposure rather than mutual underlying constructs, and therefore no reliability data for sum scores is presented.

One item was specifically developed for the study, and focused on whether the respondent working with the Jokela incident had experienced intense fear, helplessness, or horror caused by the crisis (in accordance with DSM-IV PTSD criterion A2). The responses were made on a Likert scale with 4 points, including ‘no, not at all’, ‘a little’, ‘yes, somewhat’, and ‘yes’.

Qualitative measures

A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was implemented, to allow going beyond measuring pure prevalence of psychological distress into studying further the diversity of reactions connected to the event. An open question was included to allow journalists to describe their experience of working with the incident: ‘What kind of thoughts or feelings about your work as a journalist have you had after working with the Jokela school shooting incident?’ The general wording of the item was intended to allow respondents to be free to choose what they wanted to comment on. However, in combination with the quantitative questionnaires, the question might have been interpreted by some respondents as specifically asking for psychological reactions. This question was only accessible to journalists who had indicated they had worked on the shooting. Responses were optional, and 126 journalists (64%) described their experience.

The conceptual framework approach described by Miles and Hubermann (1994: 18–25) was used in analyzing the answers. When applying this approach, a researcher uses previous research and basic facts from the studied area to build up a conceptual framework of themes expected to emerge in interviews. Interview/questionnaire scheme design and later data analysis are then carried out according to the framework. In addition, the researcher is expected to be prepared to discover and handle material not included in the conceptual framework.

As mentioned earlier, one open item was included in the current study, which meant that the conceptual framework approach was naturally implemented mainly during analysis. The framework design was influenced by research on the Jokela incident and other school shootings, as well as general research regarding journalists’ work-related stress symptoms and basic trauma-related research (e.g. Friedman et al., 2007: 55–228; Maslach and Courtois, 2008: 103–107; Stamm, 2010a: 3–11). Also, the framework design was influenced by anecdotal information gathered by the authors via media reports, relevant seminars/meetings, personal experience of work within journalism, etc.

The final framework design included expectations of reports on: (1) participants’ individual crisis reactions (feelings of shock, sadness, numbness, rumination, etc. or an outspoken lack of these reactions), and references to previous trauma exposure; (2) comments on issues related to ethical best practices in crisis journalism, and accounts of pre-crisis trauma training (this was further emphasized because of the previously mentioned petition criticizing the media, which, at the time of data collection, was fresh in journalists’ memories); and, related to this theme, (3) answers connecting the experience of the Jokela assignment with occupation-specific everyday work issues, such as work stress or shortage of staff.

Results

Quantitative measures

A summary of results from the scales measuring PTSD, depression, secondary traumatic stress, and burnout is presented in Table 1. Results on each scale for the ‘worked with Jokela’ and ‘did not work with Jokela’ groups are described separately. The ‘at risk’ groups were defined differently for each scale, using cut-off points recommended by scale authors. Regarding PTSD (PCL-C), participants with a total score of 38 or above were labeled as ‘at risk’ (National Center for PTSD, 2010: 1–2). When looking at depression (BDI-13), participants scoring above 8 were categorized as the ‘at risk’ group (Beck and Beck, 1972: 84–85). The secondary traumatic stress and burnout (ProQOL) ‘at risk’ groups were defined as those scoring within the top quartile, using the suggested cut-off point of 56 for both scales (Stamm, 2010a: 18). A series of chi-square tests were conducted in order to test for differences between the two groups on the four scales, and no differences were found.

When looking at previous work-related (JTES) and private life (TLEQ) traumatic exposure, the ‘worked with Jokela’/‘did not work with Jokela’ groups were compared by performing an ANCOVA, controlling for age and gender. Most mean scores did not differ significantly (work assignments on the scene 1.7, SD = 2.5, range = 0–14 vs 1.5, SD = 2.3, range = 0–14; personal exposure to possibly traumatic events 3.8, SD = 2.3, range = 0–13 vs 3.7, SD = 2.4, range = 0–12; personal events indicated as traumatic 1.9, SD = 1.9, range = 0–8 vs 1.7, SD = 1.9, range = 0–9). The exception was indirect work assignments, where the ‘worked with Jokela’ group indicated a larger range of experiences (mean 6.0, SD = 4.1, range = 0–14 vs 3.2, SD = 3.8, range = 0–14), (F(1, 416) = 51.154, p < .001, observed power = 1.00, partial η² = .11).

The item regarding experienced intense fear, helplessness, or horror because of the crisis was naturally answered only by the ‘worked with Jokela’ group. Of the respondents, 192 responded to the question, 33 per cent (n = 64) indicating no distress at all, 40 per cent (n = 76) a little distress, 25 per cent (n = 48) answering ‘yes, somewhat’, and 2 per cent (n = 4) in the most severe end indicating ‘yes’. The ‘worked with Jokela’ group was divided into ‘working on the scene’ (n = 25) and ‘working indirectly’ (n = 167) groups, and possible group differences were tested by conducting a chi-square test. No significant differences were found. However, due to the small sample size in the ‘working on the scene’ group, results should be interpreted with caution.

In Table 2, correlations between aforementioned scales and items are presented separately for the ‘worked with Jokela’ and ‘did not work with Jokela’ groups. All four scales measuring psychological distress (PTSD, depression, secondary traumatic stress and burnout) were strongly correlated with each other in both groups of respondents. Regarding previous exposure to traumatic events, the subscale measuring personal events indicated by the respondent as traumatic showed most significant correlations with other scales. The item measuring experienced distress during the Jokela assignment was also included in the correlation analysis for the ‘worked with Jokela’ group, and the only scale correlating with the item was secondary traumatic stress.

Table 2.

Partial correlations between scales and items in the study in the ‘worked with Jokela’ (1) and ‘did not work with Jokela’ (2) groups (controlled for gender and age).

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I
A PTSD	–	(2).65***	(2).58***	(2).61***	(2).19**	(2).19**	(2).29***	(2).41***	(2) –
B Depression	(1).57***	–	(2).46***	(2).64***	(2).15*	(2).14*	(2).14**	(2).25***	(2) –
C Secondary traumatic stress	(1).58***	(1).38***	–	(2).66***	(2).24***	(2).17**	(2).30***	(2).40***	(2) –
D Burnout	(1).52***	(1).54***	(1).63***	–	(2).16*	(2).11	(2).14*	(2).20**	(2) –
E Work assignments on the scene	(1).12	(1).10	(1).17*	(1).12	–	(2).30***	(2).33***	(2).30***	(2) –
F Work assignments indirectly	(1).12	(1).00	(1).08	(1).06	(1).24**	–	(2).23***	(2).22***	(2) –
G Personal possibly traumatic events	(1).36***	(1).27***	(1).30***	(1).29***	(1).19*	(1).16	–	(2).68***	(2) –
H Personal distressing traumatic events	(1).40***	(1).23**	(1).33***	(1).31***	(1).16*	(1).25**	(1).68***	–	(2) –
I Experience of distress due to Jokela	(1).08	(1).00	(1).25**	(1).08	(1) –.01	(1).01	(1) –.05	(1).13	–

p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

In order to investigate whether traumatic exposure predicted reactions in Jokela, a simultaneous multiple regression analysis (enter method) with the four JTES and TLEQ subscales (work assignments on the scene, indirect work assignments, personal exposure to possibly traumatic events, and personal events indicated as traumatic) as independent variables and the item measuring intense fear, helplessness, or horror during the assignment as dependent variable was carried out. Results of the analysis are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Factors significantly predicting perceived distress (intense fear, helplessness or horror) after working with the Jokela incident in a simultaneous multiple regression (enter method) analysis. Two independent variables (previous exposure to work assignments on the scene and indirect exposure to work assignments) did not predict perceived distress. Regression coefficients are standardized βs.

Qualitative measures

A total of 43 per cent (n = 54) of the respondents mentioned that the incident had provoked some kind of personal reaction, during or after the assignment. A variation of reactions were mentioned, such as general sadness or crying, fear, shock or anxiety caused directly by the incident or when reflecting on the impact on one’s own community. Other reactions mentioned were guilt for being a journalist, and empathy for the victims:

I just worked like a robot, didn’t start crying until I was driving home from the scene. (Male radio journalist, age 51–55)²

I feel ashamed over how exciting I thought the situation at the office had been. On the Jokela day, work was so intense and the adrenaline so high that it wasn’t until afterwards that it hit me: people actually died there. (Female newspaper journalist, age 31–35)

Time of occurrence of personal reactions was often mentioned, in two ways. First, 30 per cent of the group gave a direct description of when their emotions were strongest. In most cases, reactions emerged after the journalistic work was finished, usually at home. Only a few participants mentioned strong reactions also when they were at work. Second, a number of respondents, roughly as many as the aforementioned group, did not state the exact time, but clearly pointed out that their personal feelings did not affect their working capacity:

[The shooting] felt so weird, unexpected, impossible, traumatic, that I didn’t know how to react, so in other words, there was quite a chaos of feelings going on in my head. This didn’t however disturb my work. (Male newspaper journalist, age 51–55)

A total of 20 per cent of respondents mentioning personal reactions defined a specific family-focused worry as the primary reaction. In all cases, this was described as worrying about how to talk to one’s children about the shooting, usually combined with references to the children’s future interactions with the community, for example via school:

How could the perpetrator act the way he did? What had happened to a ‘normal’ boy. This was even harder to grasp since I have children of my own …. How could I talk to them about what had happened, and did they want to talk about it? Would they be afraid to go to school? (Female television journalist, age 46–50)

A majority of respondents focused more on work-related issues rather than personal reactions, although often both categories were combined. In most work-related responses, ethical issues were included. Two groups emerged: issues regarding (1) general choices on what material to publish; and (2) how to approach victims on the scene. In the first case, respondents often referred to journalists’ overall responsibility to try to find a balance between reporting the incident yet avoid provoking additional distress for the public. The second group consisted of explicit thoughts of how to approach victims on the scene, and when/if to choose not to. Most respondents in both groups labeled the ethical considerations as being ‘challenging’ in the Jokela case, while some clearly stated that the journalistic mission of telling the story is absolute and therefore information gathering was necessary. A minority also mentioned that this was a routine assignment, not provoking any reactions (n = 7), or a positive/rewarding journalistic assignment (n = 5):

When you’ve been working as long as I have, most assignments are routine. You involve yourself in the situation to be able to describe it but then you step back and leave it behind. It’s just a job. (Female newspaper journalist, age 51–55)

Can you interview children/youth that have experienced such a trauma, and if so, how? A person, especially children, shouldn’t be interviewed when they’re in shock, but we have to tell the public what is happening, and then they were the only eyewitnesses. (Female television journalist, age 46–50)

References to everyday work stress issues was almost non-existent in the responses. When tight timetables were mentioned, the ethical choices mentioned earlier were the main problem, not the timetable. One thing that did cause stress in some journalists was the demands of the home office, which were seen as unrealistic to follow up on the scene:

I was on the scene very quickly after it had happened. Then not much was known in Jokela about what really had happened … I was told that I have to get emotional responses [for the interviews]. In practice, it was very difficult to approach parents and teachers standing in front of the crisis center. (Female television journalist, age 41–45)

A topic that clearly stood out in the responses was comments about the post-Jokela public criticism towards journalists: 28 per cent directly commented on the criticism, and an additional number touched on the topic without clearly mentioning the petition. Three groups of answers emerged: first, strong reactions against the criticism, such as anger, frustration etc.; second, understanding the criticism, for example referring to the need to develop journalistic best practices; and, third, protecting one’s own workplace and colleagues. A number of responses within each group also included descriptions of personal feelings of discomfort because of the criticism:

Some hysterical school kids exaggerated everything the journalists and photographers did. (Female television journalist, age 56–60)

The accusations about how the media acted after Jokela felt very bad and unfair. At least in this organization, nobody acted the way that was described. (Female web journalist, age 26–30)

Discussion

Key points

The Jokela school shooting and its aftermath had a broad impact on journalists working on the assignment. While no quantitative differences were found regarding severity of psychological distress symptoms between those working on the incident and a control group, a variety of reactions were described by journalists working during the crisis. In addition, the nationally highlighted criticism of journalistic behavior provoked strong ethical doubts and added personal discomfort to a group of journalists, while also resulting in a positive discussion of journalistic best practices. The results reflect the relevance of a mixed methods study design, as a way of providing a wider picture of the diversity of experiences related to a crisis-related work assignment.

Limitations

One limitation when discussing possible implications of the study relates to the groups investigated. The majority of respondents working with the shooting incident were not on the scene, but worked from their office or in another part of the country. The sample size of journalists on the scene was too small to allow relevant analyses between this specific subgroup and others to be conducted. However, as has been pointed out elsewhere (Simpson and Coté, 2006: 43–45; Weidmann and Papsdorf, 2010: 264–271), in addition to journalists on the scene, many are involved with a crisis assignment in an indirect way, via interviewing victims after the incident, or editing distressing raw footage. Therefore it is important to include both groups in studies.

Another limitation is related to psychological reactions reported in the qualitative part of the study. Reactions should not be automatically interpreted as harmful, but rather in some cases as normal reactions to an exceptional event. Based on the question posed, a clear categorization between harmful and normal reactions could not be made. Reported experiences should be interpreted from a descriptive viewpoint.

Personal reactions

A variety of personal reactions such as sadness, fear, shock, or anxiety were reported. Also, 27 per cent had felt some or a lot of intense fear, helplessness, or horror because of the crisis, with an additional 40 per cent indicating feeling a little distress. The results support earlier findings that reporters working with a crisis, to an extent, do experience personal trauma-induced reactions afterwards, and that the usual time when personal feelings are strongest is after the work assignment has ended (Berrington and Jemphrey, 2003: 239–242; Feinstein, 2006: 29, 147; Idås, 2009: 1; Pyevich et al., 2003: 328; Weidmann et al., 2008: 134–135). Also, the results provide a good description of the range of possible reactions in journalists.

Although the group studied pointed out, in their own words, that psychological reactions had occurred, quantitative measures (PTSD, depression, secondary traumatic stress, and burnout) showed no significant differences between journalists working with the Jokela incident and the control group. In both groups, a minority indicated symptoms sufficiently severe to belong to an ‘at risk’ subgroup, but the size of subgroups did not differ significantly. This supports the conclusion of Smith and Newman (2009: 1) that, after working with a crisis, most journalists do not experience distress to the extent that they develop stress-induced psychological disorders such as PTSD. An alternative explanation can be related to the structure of the group studied with, as mentioned earlier, a majority in the ‘worked with Jokela’ group not actually being on the scene in Jokela.

Those with a personal history of being exposed to many traumatic events also reacted with more distress to working with the Jokela incident. This is in accordance with earlier research linking personal trauma history to the present level of psychological distress in journalists (Backholm and Björkqvist, 2010: 146–148; Pyevich et al., 2003: 327–328; Weidmann et al., 2008: 134–135). Previous work-related exposure, however, did not predict distress caused by Jokela, a result similar to some previous studies (Backholm and Björkqvist, 2010: 146–148; Dworznik, 2008: 129–130), while others (Marais and Stuart, 2005: 101; Simpson and Boggs, 1999: 18) have found such relationships. The literature regarding impact of trauma history on journalists is still sparse. More research on the topic is needed.

A group of journalists pointed out that, in fact, the reactions experienced did not affect their working capacity. This result can be interpreted in two ways. First, as already mentioned, a majority show resilience after a crisis assignment (Brayne, 2007: 10–11; Smith and Newman, 2009: 1). It is possible that respondents felt a need to add this information to prevent a misinterpretation of their answer. Second, respondents’ unprovoked statements about their own working capacity remaining unaffected can be interpreted as stemming from a fear of stigmatization. Researchers have pointed out that, within media organizations, a so-called macho culture still exists to some degree (Cobbe, 2009: 1; Osofsky et al., 2005: 291). From this viewpoint, someone who admits to having reacted to a crisis is not seen as fit for the job, and therefore journalists might be afraid to be labeled as weak if mentioning psychological reactions.

Regarding personal reactions described in the study, one type of recurring answer was journalists mentioning their children and how to talk to them about the implications of the incident. This was somewhat surprising, in the light of the general wording of the question posed. One interpretation is that the responses were a natural reflection of how Finnish parents in general reacted after the shooting, disregarding affiliation to occupational groups. The result is also in accordance with research pointing out that, if a crisis-related assignment comes close to a journalist’s personal life, it can be especially stressful (Berrington and Jemphrey, 2003: 239–240). This fact can, in turn, have implications on media organizations, for example when making choices of whom to send on specific assignments.

Regarding personal reactions, some factors expected by our research team that were seldom mentioned in qualitative responses included references to memories of earlier trauma and comments on use, need or lack of trauma management strategies in the workplace.

Work-related reactions

A majority of answers in the qualitative part of the study focused on work-related thoughts, an expected result in the light of the question analyzed. In relation to ethical issues, two general response groups emerged in the answers. One group focused on difficulties when editing various types of raw material, while the other focused on interviewing victims on the scene. Both groups raised a topic familiar from other research projects, journalistic doubts about ethical choices when working with a crisis (Juntunen, 2009: 33–38; Raittila et al., 2008: 60–83; Simpson and Coté, 2006: 73–77). Clearly, a majority of journalists studied were not sufficiently prepared for handling all dimensions of ethical considerations included in such a large-scale sudden crisis assignment within their own society. Taking into consideration the unique nature of the first shooting incident (Ministry of Justice, 2009: 97–98), a lack of preparedness might be expected but, on the other hand, as Newman (2002: 316–319) has noted, a natural part of journalistic work should be to be prepared to handle unexpected crises. The current study shows the need for strategies and crisis-related education in media organizations and journalism schools. Additional support for the need for pre-crisis training is provided in a study by Suomalainen et al. (2009: 18–19), showing that one third of the victims from the Jokela incident who had been interviewed by the media reported that journalists approaching them caused additional distress.

Another topic that was strongly reflected in qualitative answers was the post-Jokela criticism of journalists. These answers included a range of responses, from angry counter-reactions at one extreme to statements that demonstrated an understanding of the criticism and reflection about journalistic behavior at the other. This parallels results from other studies of journalists after the Jokela shooting (Juntunen, 2009: 33–36; Raittila et al., 2008: 166–88; Raittila et al., 2009: 11–21), that the post-Jokela criticism had a large impact on the development of Finnish crisis journalism, forcing journalists and organizations to participate in the debate and update crisis management strategies. Thus, it seems that the criticism has resulted in some positive developments within crisis journalism.

Other research projects have not discussed in detail the implications of the discomfort felt by journalists due to the Jokela criticism. Results of the current study add another, more negative, dimension to the impact of the storm of criticism: in the direct aftermath of the shooting, the criticism might in itself have caused additional distress to journalists. One reference aiming in the same direction can be found in Raittila et al.’s (2009: 12–13) study of the later Kauhajoki shooting, where the term ‘media hate’ is used to describe the atmosphere connected to the Jokela criticism. Clearly, the impact that the Jokela mass petition and similar cases of public criticism might have had on ethical issues as well as employees’ long-term well-being would be an interesting topic worth considering for further study.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The research project was made possible by grants to Klas Backholm from the following non-profit foundations: Högskolestiftelsen i Österbotten, Oskar Öflunds stiftelse, Stiftelsen för Åbo Akademi, Svensk-Österbottniska samfundet, Swedish Cultural Foundation in Finland, and The Finnish Broadcasting Company 75th Anniversary Fund.

Notes

Author biographies

Klas Backholm is a doctoral student at the Department of Developmental Psychology at Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa, Finland.

Kaj Björkqvist is Professor and Head of the Department of Developmental Psychology at Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa, Finland. He is also Adjunct Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Turku, Finland.

Address: as Klas Backholm [email: kaj.bjorkqvist@abo.fi].

References

Backholm

Björkqvist

(2010) The effects of exposure to crisis on well-being of journalists: a study on crisis-related factors predicting psychological health in a sample of Finnish journalists. Media, War & Conflict 3(2): 138–151.

Beck

(1972) Screening depressed patients in family practice: a rapid technic. Postgraduate Medicine 52(6): 81–85.

Berrington

Jemphrey

(2003) Pressures on the press: reflections on reporting tragedy. Journalism 4(2): 225–248.

Brayne

(2007) Trauma & journalism: a guide for journalists, editors & managers. Available at: http://www.dartcenter.org/global/europe/documents/DCEJournoTraumaHandbookFinal_000.pdf (accessed November 2008).

Cobbe

(2009) Frontline journalists’ attitudes to seeking help for trauma-related stress. Paper presented at ‘Trauma in Lives and Communities – Victims, Violators, Prevention and Recovery’, The 11th European Conference on Traumatic Stress, Oslo, June.

Council for Mass Media in Finland (2008) The Council for Mass Media in Finland: Self-regulation by publishers and journalists. Available at: http://www.jsn.fi/en/Council_for_Mass_Media/the-council-for-mass-media-in-finland/ (accessed August 2011).

Creswell

Zhang

(2009) The application of mixed methods designs to trauma research. Journal of Traumatic Stress 22(6): 612–621.

Dworznik

(2008) The psychology of local news: compassion fatigue and posttraumatic stress in broadcast reporters, photographers, and live truck engineers. PhD thesis, Kent State University, College of Communication and Information.

Feinstein

(2006) Journalists under Fire: The Psychological Hazards of Covering War. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

10.

Feinstein

Owen

Blair

(2002) A hazardous profession: war, journalists, and psychopathology. American Journal of Psychiatry 159(9): 1570–1575.

11.

Friedman

Keane

Resick

(eds.) (2007) Handbook of PTSD: Science and Practice. New York: Guilford Press.

12.

Idås

(2009) A comparative study of journalists and first responders mobilized for the tsunami disaster. Paper presented at ‘Trauma in Lives and Communities – Victims, Violators, Prevention and Recovery’, The 11th European Conference on Traumatic Stress, Oslo, June.

13.

Journalisti (2008) Vastaa kyselyyn kriiseistä (Take part in a questionnaire on crises). Journalisti 84(9): 24.

14.

Juntunen

(2009) Journalistinen etiikka kriisissä – kiireen ja kilpailun haasteet toimittajien ammatilliselle itsekurille (Journalism ethics in crisis – speed and competition as challenges for professional self-discipline). Media & Viestintä 32(2): 31–47.

15.

Kubany

. (2000) Development and preliminary validation of a brief broad-spectrum measure of trauma exposure: the Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment 12(2): 210–224.

16.

McMahon

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

17.

Marais

Stuart

(2005) The role of temperament in the development of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder amongst journalists. South African Journal of Psychology 35(1): 89–105.

18.

Maslach

Courtois

(2008) Burnout. In: Reyes

. (eds) The Encyclopedia of Psychological Trauma. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 103–107.

19.

Miles

Hubermann

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Ministry of Justice (2009) Jokela school shooting on 7 November 2007 – Report of the Investigation Commission. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice.

21.

National Bureau of Investigation (2009) Kauhajoen koulusurmien esitutkinta valmistunut (Preliminary investigation of the Kauhajoki school shooting finished). Available at: http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/krp/home.nsf/PFBD/EB9F7CCDA47780A1C22575D100473D91?opendocument (accessed June 2009).

22.

National Center for PTSD (2010) Using the PTSD Checklist. Available at: http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/assessments/assessment-pdf/PCL-handout.pdf (accessed August 2010).

23.

Newman

(2002) The bridge between sorrow and knowledge, In: Danieli

(ed.) Sharing the Front Line and the Back Hills. Peacekeepers, Humanitarian Aid Workers and the Media in the Midst of Crisis. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, 316–322.

24.

Osofsky

Holloway

Pickett

(2005) War correspondents as responders: considerations for training and clinical services. Psychiatry 68(3): 283–293.

25.

Pyevich

(2001) The relationship among cognitive schemata, job-related traumatic exposure, and PTSD in journalists. PhD thesis, University of Tulsa, Discipline of Clinical Psychology.

26.

Pyevich

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.

27.

Raittila

Haara

Kangasluoma

. (2009) Kauhajoen Koulusurmat Mediassa (The Kauhajoki school shootings in the media). Tampere: University of Tampere.

28.

Raittila

Johansson

Juntunen

. (2008) Jokelan Koulusurmat Mediassa (The Jokela school shootings in the media). Tampere: University of Tampere.

29.

Simpson

Boggs

(1999) An explanatory study of traumatic stress among newspaper journalists. Journalism and Communication Monographs 1(1): 1–26.

30.

Simpson

Coté

(2006) Covering Violence: A Guide to Ethical reporting about Victims & Trauma. New York: Columbia University Press.

31.

Smith

Newman

(2009) Covering trauma: impact on journalists. Available at: http://dartcenter.org/content/covering-trauma-impact-on-journalists (accessed January 2009).

32.

Stamm

(2005) The ProQOL Manual. The Professional Quality of Life Scale: Compassion Satisfaction, Burnout & Compassion Fatigue/Secondary Trauma Scales. Baltimore, MD: Sidran Press.

33.

Stamm

(2010a) The Concise ProQOL Manual (Professional Quality of Life Scale: Compassion Satisfaction and Compassion Fatigue). Pocatello, ID: ProQOL.org

34.

Stamm

(2010b) The ProQOL (Professional Quality of Life Scale: Compassion Satisfaction and Compassion Fatigue). Pocatello, ID: ProQOL.org

35.

Suomalainen

. (2009) Jokelan Koulukeskuksen Ampumissurmille Altistuneiden Oppilaiden Selviytyminen, Tuki ja Hoito (The coping, support and care of students exposed to the Jokela school shooting incident). Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare.

36.

Weathers

. (1993) The PTSD Checklist (PCL): reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, San Antonio, October.

37.

Weidmann

Papsdorf

(2010) Witnessing trauma in the newsroom: posttraumatic symptoms in television journalists exposed to violent news clips. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease 198(4): 264–271.

38.

Weidmann

Fehm

Fydrich

(2008) Covering the tsunami disaster: subsequent post-traumatic and depressive symptoms and associated social factors. Stress and Health 24(2): 129–135.