Trauma and Journalists
“If I get killed, I kind of think, so what? People die all the time. I watch people
die. I’d rather it not be me. I want to do more stories.”
Trauma as an ethical issue
Journalists, especially reporters who cover conflict and disaster, are as vulnerable to stress and trauma as other professionals, from firefighters and disaster counsellors to combat soldiers. Foreign reporters often work alone in the field, with limited support. The results can be tragic when stress rises to debilitating levels and goes untreated. Journalists may abuse drugs or alcohol and struggle in their marriages and personal relationships. They may endure, often silently, such recurring problems as lack of sleep, hyper-arousal or emotional numbness.
Trauma, when sustained and serious, can affect the performance of journalists, shorten their careers or require sick leave. News organizations have a long-term interest in making sure that journalists are aware of trauma and can access counselling. A trauma program needs to be part of an organization’s efforts to promote employee well-being and health in the workplace. Newsrooms have an ethical obligation to establish such programs, since it is they who send journalists into the field.
It seems obvious that journalists should be concerned about trauma when:
• More than 1,200 journalists were killed in the past 10 years of foreign reporting
• More than 80 journalists were killed in Iraq since the 2003 war began
• Journalists may be targets of terrorists, or military units
• Growth of media means more journalists are in the line of danger
• Trauma exists at home: the Oklahoma City bombing, the Columbine shooting, “9-11” in New York, the SwissAir crash off Nova Scotia, Katrina’s attack on New Orleans. City-desk reporters cover horrific car accidents, suicides, and fires on a daily basis
Therefore, journalists experience:
• Sustained direct exposure to potentially traumatizing events
• Secondary or indirect exposure through interviews with traumatized persons
• Recurringexposure through new assignments
What is psychological trauma?
Psychological stress and trauma is real, and a part of life. Neither journalists nor other professionals can escape it. But we should not confuse ordinary, stressful experiences with serious, debilitating trauma.
Trauma, like stress, is a matter of degree, and the effects may be temporary. The most serious trauma for journalists is not everyday stress or deadline pressure, but the trauma that results from disturbing, shocking, non-ordinary experiences.
Trauma is not limited to journalism. It can be caused by child abuse, threats of violence, rape, domestic violence and human rights abuses. Serious trauma occurs either through exposure to one horrific event, or through repeated exposure. Trauma is debilitating when it reaches the stage of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, where symptoms are sustained and interfere with the person’s life and career.
Psychological and medical studies have identified processes in the brain and nervous system that correlate with trauma. Trauma is both psychologically and physically ‘real.’ The shock literally enters into the body, and leaves a physiological trace, accompanied by symptoms.
It is foolhardy, then, to think that journalists are immune from trauma because of their “strength of will” or their ability to “not get involved” with the story. Even the most professional counsellors and experienced police officers risk trauma. We should not be ashamed of trauma. It is a natural, understandable reaction to events. It is what you do about those reactions that count.
Trauma:
The person has experienced an event outside the range of usual human experience that would be markedly distressing to almost anyone, such as a serious threat to his/her life or physical integrity; serious threat or harm to his/her children, spouse, or other close relatives or friends; sudden destruction of his/her home or community; or seeing another person seriously injured or killed in an accident or by physical violence.
Post-traumatic stress disorder:
PTSD is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. Traumatic events that may trigger PTSD include violent assaults, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, vehicle accidents, rape, physical abuse and military combat. PTSD sufferers have trouble functioning in their jobs or personal relationships. Children can be traumatized and have difficulty in school, become isolated from others or develop phobias. PTSD, which admits of degrees, is diagnosed when symptoms last more than one month. Untreated, PTSD is unlikely to disappear.
The American Psychological Association estimates that 5.2 million American adults ages 18 to 54, or 3.6% of the population in this age group, have PTSD. In 1990, anxiety disorders cost the U.S. an estimated $47 million.
American Psychological Association
Secondary or Vicarious Trauma:
Secondary trauma is a stress reaction experienced by therapists, journalists and others as a result of interviewing and listening to accounts of trauma by victims, clients and others. It can lead to Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder (STSD) with symptoms similar to PTSD. Secondary trauma is the result of empathic engagement with other people’s traumatic experiences. It is an occupational hazard. It reflects neither pathology in the journalist nor intentionality by the traumatized client. It is a long-term consequence of working with suffering people.
Symptoms of PTSD
Not all trauma victims manifest exactly the same symptoms. But there is a collection of symptoms found across most cases.
• Hyperarousal
• Insomnia, decreased concentration, increased startle response to stimuli, irritability and anger, hyper-vigilance (scanning environment for danger).
• Avoidance and/or numbing
• Withdrawal from life or activities previously enjoyed, depression, shunning anything that reminds one of the traumatic event.
• Re-experiencing intrusive recollections of events: nightmares, flashbacks, responses to specific sensory triggers (e.g., a smell associated with an event). Other signs:Increased rates of illness, loss of efficiency, judgment errors, cynicism, intolerance of emotion, addictions. Also, “burn-out”: physical, emotional and mental exhaustion, depersonalization and detachment, loss of ideals.
Coping Strategies
Work-related support (effective debriefing procedures, counselling, education, relaxation techniques, monitoring of trauma); social support; commitment of individuals to a “self-care plan.”
For more information on trauma, see the American Psychological Association or The Sidran Institute.
For coping methods, see Jon G. Allen, Coping with Trauma: A Guide to Self-Understanding. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1995
For the latest on trauma issues in journalism, see the Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma.
Responses to trauma in journalism
Denial, dismissal, avoidance…
Despite scientific knowledge of trauma, only in the past several years have major news organizations begun to establish trauma programs. Progress has been made in the face of scepticism and resistance among many journalists and editors. Still, there are too few scientific studies of trauma and journalists, too few trauma services for journalists, and only a growing recognition by news outlets. Journalists are unprepared for its impact, or they have limited knowledge of trauma.
Journalism is far behind other professions, such as educational counselling and fire and police departments, in recognizing trauma as a serious issue that must be addressed. The myth still exists that journalists shouldn’t need trauma programs because journalists are supposed to be “tough as nails.” When it comes to trauma, journalism sometimes appears to be one of the last “macho” professions.
Journalistic attitudes
The prevalent attitude toward trauma among foreign reporters was captured by a documentary about reporters titled Deadline Iraq: The Uncensored Stories of the War. The documentary contained interviews with over 50 journalists. Following are a sample of the reporters’ comments.
“The first combat that we saw was much like a video game…a flash from a tank, and a boom. I saw why people wanted to cover combat because it is an experience of awakening to your life that happens at some primal level, it is almost hormonal. Suddenly you’re there and they didn’t get you and you say, ‘Gosh, let’s do this again tomorrow.”
—Jim Dwyer, New York Times reporter, commenting on the adrenalin rush.
“This was the purest, most authentic thing I would ever do, professionally.”
— Jim Axelrod, CBS news reporter
“I don’t know if surreal is the right word, but you don’t feel personally involved. You know it’s horrible, you can see people dieing in front of you, you see people burning. You cannot afford to get too involved in this emotionally, or you’re done for.”
— Mathew Fisher, Canadian embedded reporter, CanWest News, on not getting “involved”
“War is a great waste, yet I still didn’t have any emotional connect(ion), because they were trying to kill me.”
— Ross Simpson, AP Radio
“You smell it and you physically recoil.”
— Jim Dwyer, on the “smell” of war (rotting bodies, etc.)
“It (the smell) stayed in your clothes for days, you didn’t want to eat after you’ve smelled this. It just turned your stomach.”
— Ross Simpson, AP Radio
As the program unfolds, however, a change occurs. Statements by reporters at the start of the documentary tend to be full of “bravado” about the excitement of covering war. But as the documentary continues, and they reflect on what they’ve seen, their comments become more emotional. Some reporters break into tears as they recount horrific events.
Evidence of trauma among war reporters: A ground-breaking study
The first psychological study of war journalists, titled A Hazardous Profession: War, Journalists, and Psychopathology, was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, September 2002. The study formed the basis for a recent book by Anthony Feinstein, a Canadian psychiatrist, titled Dangerous Lives: War and the Men and Women Who Report It (Toronto: Thomas Allen, 2003).
The study used self-report questionnaires and interviews to gather data from two groups: 140 war journalists and 107 journalists who had never covered war. The 140 war journalists included 110 men and 30 women with an average of 15 years experience from six major organizations: CBC, ITN, Reuters, Associated Press, CNN, BBC. There was an 80% response rate from both groups, including 28 interviews with war reporters.
The study concluded that war journalists have significantly more psychiatric difficulties than journalists who do not report on war. Lifetime prevalence of PTSD for this group was 28.6%, which is similar to rates reported for combat veterans, and which exceeds those of police officers. The incidence of major depression was 21.4%, exceeding that of the general population.
The study also found:
• Higher rates of alcohol use (14 units of alcohol per week; 7.6 for non-war reporters)
• Intrusive thoughts, replay of memories and hyper-arousal were common
• Low awareness of trauma
• All journalists interviewed had experienced social difficulties, such as re-adjusting to civil society, reluctance to mix with friends, troubled relationships, and embarrassing startle responses
Feinstein recommended that “these results, which need replicating, should alert news organizations that significant psychological distress may occur in many war journalists and often goes untreated.” He went further to describe “a culture of silence on the part of the news bosses and the journalists themselves.”
Why these attitudes?
• Discussing trauma is not encouraged or may be dismissed as psycho-babble.
“An admission of emotional distress in a macho world was feared as a sign of weakness and a career liability.” (Feinstein)
• Career ambitions: war reporting gives you a higher media profile; it is difficult to refuse assignments; there is pressure to stay in the field to justify the expense and trouble of getting you there; to prevent other reporters from “taking” your assignment; etc.
• Optimism that you can cover war and return “psychologically unscathed”
• Comforting myths: “My camera protects me.” “I’m too busy to be affected”
• Denial may be a necessity for continuing to return to war zones
• No clear signals from employers that it is okay to mention trauma
What can newsrooms do?
Newsrooms can develop an effective trauma program. Suggestions include:
• Media outlets must acknowledge trauma as reality and a concern; not as a career “stopper”
• They must regard trauma services as part of staff well-being, similar to other programs
• They need to make information available to journalists and hold information sessions
• They should offer confidential counselling
• They should encourage journalists to monitor themselves and their colleagues
• They need to develop a policy on reporting crises, such as rotating reporters and de-briefing
• Media outlets must make trauma training part of their ongoing training for war reporters
Journalism and Conflict Resolution
What is conflict resolution journalism?
Conflict-resolution journalism is sensitive and responsible reporting on events in conflict-torn areas of the world. Journalism assists citizens to rebuild their society and to reduce tensions — or at least not exacerbate existing divisions. Conflict-resolution journalism helps citizens live peacefully and move toward democratic institutions.
Conflict-resolution journalism takes many forms, and has many names. It is called “peace journalism,” or “conflict-sensitive journalism.” The words “resolution” and “sensitive” are intentional. They signal that journalism plays a part in rebuilding societies, but it cannot do everything. By itself, journalism cannot end conflict.
The trend toward conflict-reduction journalism emerged by the 1980s. There was a need to develop free and responsible media in Eastern Europe, after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Rwanda showed how media could spark genocide. Regional and civil conflicts sparked interest in the role of journalism in conflicted societies. In response to these problems, “media development” or “media training” programs were created to establish, or re-establish, responsible press in many countries. Other programs enlist the help of Western journalists to assist the press in developing countries to cover elections in a fair and accurate manner. In this way, conflict-reduction journalism became linked with the work of governmental and non-governmental agencies in post-conflict societies. However, conflict-reduction journalism is not limited, in principle, to non-Western developing nations. The approach could be used to report racial and ethnic tensions in developed Western countries.
Issues surrounding conflict-resolution journalism
Independence from government
Will journalists in conflict-scarred societies feel free to critique government programs and act as watchdog on abuses of power, or will they support the government in the name of stability? Can conflict-resolution journalists expect to hold accountable the governments of struggling countries where leaders are sensitive to criticism, and where the traditions of free speech and democracy are not strongly established?
Exclusion of voices?
Does conflict-resolution journalism mean that certain controversial voices or groups are not included in news reports, or news programs, so as to not spark tensions? Who decides who gets on the news?
Whose media values?
What code of ethics should guide media development? Should media trainers simply “transplant” American, Canadian or Western codes of ethics to countries with different values and needs? For example, is an American journalism model, which emphasizes a free and vigorous press, appropriate for countries that value social cohesion?
What should be done first?
In developing media, what are the priorities? Should press development begin by spending millions of dollars on media technology? Should it start by training individuals to write accurate reports? At what point should professional and ethical standards be introduced? These questions are especially important for agencies that fund media development with taxpayer dollars, or donations from the public.
Objectivity and conflict-resolution journalism
A major ethical issue is whether conflict-reduction journalists should be objective or impartial in their reporting. Some critics of conflict-reduction journalism feel that journalists cannot be impartial if their primary aim is to build social stability and promote peace. Objectivity will be compromised by the desire to reach certain social outcomes. They argue that conflict-reduction journalists will “pull their punches” when they criticize, omit controversial facts or overlook tough issues to avoid conflict. Will their primary attachment be to reporting the truth?
However, many conflict-reduction experts and agencies advocate the development of a professional, independent and impartial news media. They believe that conflict reduction is not served by censoring voices, slanting the evidence, hiding uncomfortable facts, engaging in partisanship, or communicating uninformed spin. The aim is to build, slowly, a media system that reduces bias and other forms of subjectivity. The decline of impartial public journalism and the rise of a divisive partisan journalism usually signals that the society in question is spiralling downward into factions and violence. As the press becomes more partisan, it loses credibility. Without some degree of impartial public journalism, the society fails to communicate effectively, and confidence-building measures falter.
Impartiality as crucial
This understanding of conflict-sensitive journalism is advanced by Ross Howard in two handbooks: An Operational Framework for Media and Peacebuilding (Vancouver: IMPACS, 2002) and Conflict Sensitive Journalism: A handbook by Ross Howard (2003). The handbooks were written for the Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society (Vancouver: IMPACS) of Vancouver and International Media Support of Copenhagen.
The handbooks state that, “The media can be an ‘instrument’ of conflict resolution when the information it presents is reliable, respects human rights, and represents diverse views. It’s the kind of media that upholds accountability and exposes malfeasance. It’s the kind of media that enables a society to make well-informed choices, which is the precursor of democratic governance” (Howard, 2002: 1).
Being attached to peacebuilding is not enough. How one carries out peacebuilding reporting is crucial. Journalists should look to the common good, question inaccurate statements and avoid provocative or malicious language. Citizens in conflict need to know both sides of the story, and what the other sides actually says and how it will affect them. Journalists need to be respected as trusted professionals who do not take sides. (Howard, 2003: 13-4, 19).
Global journalism ethics
What is global journalism ethics?
Global journalism ethics aims at developing a comprehensive set of principles and standards for the practice of journalism in an age of global news media. New forms of communication are reshaping the practice of a once parochial craft serving a local, regional or national public. Today, news media use communication technology to gather text, video and images from around the world, with unprecedented speed and varying degrees of editorial control. The same technology allows news media to disseminate this information to audiences scattered around the globe.
Despite these global trends, most codes of ethics contain standards for news organizations or associations in specific countries. International associations of journalists exist, and some have constructed declarations of principle. But no global code has been adopted by all major journalism associations and news organizations.
In addition to statements of principle, more work needs to be done on the equally important area of specific, practice guidelines for covering international events.
An adequate global journalism ethics has yet to be constructed.
The global media debate
Since at least the 1970s, a global media ethics has been part of controversial attempts to establish a “new world information order”. These international movements have included broad “media” issues that, albeit important, are not a primary focus of journalism ethics per se, e.g., the equal distribution of computer technology in the world.
Developing nations and/or UN agencies such as UNESCO have led such movements. None to date has been successful. In the late 1900s, the movement was opposed by governments and news organizations in the United States and Britain. They feared that non-democratic powers might use a global ethic to justify limits to freedom of expression and of the press.
The dream of a set of principles for equitable and responsible dissemination of information worldwide has not died. The United Nations is currently holding “World Summits on the Information Society.” At a summit in Geneva in December 2003, 175 countries adopted a plan of action and a declaration of principles. A second summit will be held in Tunisia in November 2005.
On the history of these movements, see Gerbner, G. & Mowlana, H. & Nordenstreng, K., eds., The Global Media Debate. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1999.
Why a global ethics?
There are at least two reasons:
(1) Practical: a non-global ethic is no longer able to adequately address the new problems that face a global journalism, and
(2) Ethical: new global responsibilities come with global impact and reach.
Both reasons are grounded in the fact that news media now inhabit a radically pluralistic, global community where the impact of their reports can have far-reaching effects — good or bad. News reports, via satellite or the Internet, reach people around the world and influence the actions of governments, militaries, humanitarian agencies and warring ethnic groups. A responsible global ethic is needed in a world where news media bring together a plurality of different religions, traditions and ethnic groups.
One responsibility is to report issues and events in a way that reflects this global plurality of views; to practice a journalism that helps different groups understand each other better. Reports should be accurate, balanced and diverse, as judged from an international perspective. A biased and parochial journalism can wreak havoc in a tightly linked global world. Unless reported properly, North American readers may fail to understand the causes of violence in Middle East, or a famine in Africa. Biased reports may incite ethnic groups in a region to attack each other. A narrow-minded, patriotic news media can stampede populations into war. Moreover, journalism with a global perspective is needed to help citizens understand the daunting global problems of poverty, environmental degradation, technological inequalities and political instability.
New stage in journalism ethics
Since the birth of modern journalism in the 17th century, journalism has gradually broaden the scope of the people that it claims to serve — from factions to specific social classes to the public of nations. The journalistic principle of “serving the public interest” has been understood, tacitly or explicitly, as serving one’s own public, social class or nation. The other principles of objectivity, impartiality and editorial independence were limited by this parochial understanding of who journalism serves. For example, “impartiality” meant being impartial in one’s coverage of rival groups within one’s society, but not necessarily being impartial to groups outside one’s national boundaries.
Global journalism ethics, then, can be seen as an extension of journalism ethics — to regard journalism’s “public” as the citizens of the world, and to interpret the ethical principles of objectivity, balance and independence in an international manner.
Journalism ethics becomes more “cosmopolitan” in tone and perspective.
Components of global journalism ethics
The development of global journalism ethics has the following tasks.
Conceptual tasks
New philosophical foundations for a global ethics, which include:
• global re-interpretation of the ethical role and aims of journalism
• global re-interpretation of existing journalism principles and standards, such as objectivity, balance and independence
• construction of new norms and “best practices” as guides for the practice of global journalism
Research tasks
More research into the state of journalism, amid globalization:
• studies of news media in various regions of world
• studies on the evolution and impact of globalization in news media, with a focus on ownership, technology and practice
• studies on the ethical standards of new media in different countries
• studies on news coverage of international problems and issues
Practical tasks
Actions to implement and support global standards:
• application of this global perspective to re-define the coverage of international events and issues
• coalition-building among journalists and interested parties with the aim of writing a global code of ethics that has wide-spread acceptance
• initiatives to defend and enhance free and responsible news media, especially in areas where problems are the greatest
How would a global ethics be different?
Philosophically, the distinct conceptual element of a global ethics can be summarized by three imperatives:
1. Act as global agents
Journalists should see themselves as agents of a global public sphere. The goal of their collective actions is a well-informed, diverse and tolerant global “info-sphere” that challenges the distortions of tyrants, the abuse of human rights and the manipulation of information by special interests.
2. Serve the citizens of the world
The global journalist’s primary loyalty is to the information needs of world citizens. Journalists should refuse to define themselves as attached primarily to factions, regions or even countries. Serving the public means serving more than one’s local readership or audience, or even the public of one’s country.
3. Promote non-parochial understandings
The global journalist frames issues broadly and uses a diversity of sources and perspectives to promote a nuanced understanding of issues from an international perspective. Journalism should work against a narrow ethnocentrism or patriotism. What do these three imperatives imply for specific standards of journalism, such as objectivity? Under global journalism ethics, objectivity becomes the ideal of informing impartially from an international stance. Objectivity in journalism has usually been understood as the duty to avoid bias toward groups within one’s own country. Global objectivity takes on the additional responsibility of allowing bias towards one’s country or culture as a whole to distort reports, especially reports on international issues.
Objective reports, to be accurate and balanced, must contain all relevant international sources and cross-cultural perspectives. In addition, global journalism asks journalists to be more conscious of how they frame the global public’s perspective on major stories, and how they set the international news agenda. The aim of global journalism should be more than helping the public sphere “go well” at home, as civic journalists say. The aim should be to facilitate rational deliberation in a global public sphere.
Global journalism ethics implies a firm journalistic response to inward-looking attitudes, such as extreme patriotism. It was disturbing to see how some news organizations during the Iraq War of 2003 so quickly shucked their peacetime commitments to independent, impartial reporting as soon as the drums of war started beating. Cosmopolitanism means that the primary ethical duty of a global journalism in times of conflict and uncertainty is not a patriotism of blind allegiance, or muted criticism. Public duty calls for independent, hard-edged news, along with investigations and analysis.
Problems and obstacles
Universal values?
Among advocates of global ethics, there is disagreement over whether ethicists need to identify “universal values” among all journalists, or humans. Do such universal values exist? What might they be?
Recently, a growing group of ethicists have attempted to identify a common core of values in various places: in codes of journalism ethics, in international treaties on human rights, in anthropological studies of culture.
See Black, J. and R. Barney, eds., Search for a global media ethic. [Special issue] Journal of Mass (Eds.). Media Ethics, 17(4), (2002).
One view is that neither universal values nor universal consent is required for a plausible, global code. This view sometimes stems from a contractual or ‘constructionist” view of ethics. The constructionist does not believe that ethics depends on “finding” or “discovering”, through empirical means, a set of universal values that all rational people acknowledge. Rather, the correct method of global ethics is to see whether all or most interested parties are able to “construct” and agree upon a set of principles through a fair process of deliberation. On this view, it is also not clear that a set of values must gain universal consensus — a demand that seems unduly strong, given the variety of new media in the world. A weaker requirement would aim at the construction of a set of principles agreed to by most major journalism associations and news organizations.
Note: On a constructionist approach, see Ward, S. J. A., Philosophical Foundations of Global Journalism Ethics, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20(1), (2005), 3-21.
Getting specific:
Global journalism ethics will have to amount to more than a dreamy spiritualism about the brotherhood of man and universal benevolence. Conceptually, there is work to be done. Global journalism ethics must show, in detail, how its ideas imply changes to norms and practices. What exactly do journalists “owe” citizens in a distant land? How can global journalists integrate their partial and impartial perspectives? How can journalists support global values while remaining impartial communicators?
Reforming media practices
The slow, complex, practical task of developing better media practices is no less imposing. Exhorting individual journalists to be ethical will be futile unless supported by an institutional climate that encourages global values in the newsroom. Aware of such difficulties, some journalists may accuse global journalism ethicists of being unrealistic in thinking that news organizations will provide the education, expertise and extra resources needed to achieve a high-quality cosmopolitan journalism.
Select bibliography
Bertrand, C. Media Ethics and Accountability Systems. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2000.
Black, J. and R. Barney, eds., “Search for a global media ethic.” [Special issue] Journal of Mass (Eds.). Media Ethics, 17(4), (2002).
Callahan, S. “New Challenges of Globalization for Journalism.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 18, (2003), 3-15.
Christians, C. G. “Ethical Theory in a Global Setting.” In Cooper, T. W. & Christians, C. & Plude, F. F. & White, R. A. Thomas, eds., Communication Ethics and Global Change, p. 3-19: White Plains, NY: Longman, 1989.
Christians, C. and Nordenstreng, K. “Social Responsibility Worldwide.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 19(1), 3-28.
Christians, C. & Traber, M. , eds., Communication Ethics and Universal Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997.
Cohen, J., ed., For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism, Martha C. Nussbaum with Respondents. Boston: Beacon Press, 1996.
Cooper, T. W. & Christians, C. & Plude, F. F. & White, R. A. Thomas, eds., Communication Ethics and Global Change. White Plains, NY: Longman, 1989.
Gerbner, G. & Mowlana, H. & Nordenstreng, K., eds., The Global Media Debate. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1993.
Merrill, J. C. Global Journalism, 2nd ed. New York: Longman, 1991.
Price M., Rozumilowicz, B. & Verhulst, S., eds., Media Reform: Democratizing the Media, Democratizing the State. London: Routledge, 2002.
Seib, P. The Global Journalist: News and Conscience in a World of Conflict. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002.
Ward, S.J.A. “Philosophical Foundations of Global Journalism Ethics” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20(1), (2005), 3-21.
Ward, S. J. A. The Invention of Journalism Ethics: The Path to Objectivity and Beyond. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. 2005.
Weaver, D. H., ed., The Global Journalist. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1998.
