Journalists and the Coronavirus. How Changes in Work Environment Affected Psychological Health During the Pandemic

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on how journalists carry out their work. This study investigates how the pandemic has affected the psychological well-being of journalists in Finland and Norway. The prevalence of six types of psychological distress symptoms is measured, as well as the impact of three work-related risk factors on distress severity. The risk factors were range of potential virus exposure in line of work, negative experiences due to working remotely, and lack of workplace social support. Study results are based on three separate online surveys, two collected in Norway (June 2020, N = 2115; December 2020, N = 1799), and one in Finland (January–February 2021, N = 552). Between 74 and 77% of journalists had experienced some form of distress to at least some degree, and 28–47% had severe problems related to one or more distress subtype. Feeling isolated, anxious, or worn out were most frequent. Distress of all six subtypes was significantly more common among females. Two risk factors (negative experiences due to remote work; lack of social support) predicted more distress in all three datasets and one (virus exposure during work) in two samples.

KEYWORDS:

• Crisis
• COVID-19
• journalism
• mental health
• potentially traumatic event
• psychotraumatology
• social support

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected journalistic work practices in the Nordic countries in more thorough ways than many other crises during modern times of peace. Journalists have continuously covered this long-wave event as a part of their everyday work, with various shorter regional peaks of more intense news work, reminiscent of news coverage of more sudden crises, when needed (McInnes 2018; Perreault and Perreault 2021). At the same time, a majority of journalists have had to restructure their practical work arrangements according to virus prevention restrictions, by for instance moving to home offices or developing strategies for how to conduct interviews safely (Hoak 2021).

The study takes its starting point in the intersection between the fields of journalism practice and psychotraumatology. It investigates how changes brought on by the pandemic affected Finnish and Norwegian journalists’ psychological health during the first year of the crisis (March 2020–February 2021). Previous research on the impact of crises on journalists mental health has to a large degree focused on sudden events, such as terror attacks or natural disasters, or on journalism in conflict areas (Aoki et al. 2013; Smith et al. 2015). However, similar research on previous long-wave events is lacking, and the current study aims to contribute with new information to this field.

The study presents results gathered from three different surveys, with similar survey structures but collected at various time points. Two were conducted with Norwegian news journalists (dataset 1 collected in June 2020, N = 2115; dataset 2 in December 2020, N = 1799), and one in Finland (dataset 3 in January–February 2021, N = 552). The study investigates whether journalists experienced psychological distress due to the pandemic. Furthermore, it maps the potential impact of three work-related risk factors on psychological well-being. Firstly, the possible risk of exposure to the virus when for instance doing interviews; secondly, the challenges related to the sudden change of work environment, such as increased difficulties to focus on work tasks; and thirdly, the potential lack of workplace social support when changing one’s work environment. As the study is based on three surveys, gathered at different time points in two countries, the national crisis context varied from one-time point to the next. Thus, the study does not aim to compare the countries/datasets, but rather to illustrate experiences of the pandemic and related psychological distress at these times.

The Pandemic, Journalists, and Psychological Trauma

Scholars have proposed that mass media in the Nordic region act within a media welfare system, consisting of country-level combinations of strong public service and commercial actors (Schrøder, Blach-Ørstenm, and Kæmsgaard Eberholst 2020; Syvertsen et al. 2014). Media in Finland and Norway have traditionally been able to act independently and to provide relatively stable working conditions for their employees. A large majority of journalists have a permanent employment status, and terms of employment are regulated via national and regional agreements between companies and employees. Media in the countries have received high scores in regard to freedom of press (Reporters without Borders 2022) and to trustworthiness and brand loyalty among audiences (Bjørgan and Moe 2021; Reunanen 2021). Both countries have similar nationally established ethical guidelines that support journalists in their everyday work and journalistic choices (Nordenstreng and Heinonen 2018), and journalists—as any other citizen—generally have good access to community and workplace health services within the societal welfare system in the countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic reached Finland and Norway in early 2020. The first national restrictions were introduced in March and additional regulations followed. For instance, in Finland, traveling restrictions between the Helsinki area and other parts of the country were introduced in the spring, and the media reported a “second wave” of the pandemic hitting the country in late 2020. In the two countries, throughout the first year restrictions on national and regional levels were lifted, and new ones were put in place, responding to the disease incidence levels at that time (Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare 2021; Norwegian Government Security and Service Organization 2021).

The pandemic is thus an extraordinary event, causing a state of collective disruptancy that to date has required extraordinary response actions. In such events, societal values and/or structures are threatened, causing emergency managers and policymakers to make decisions during uncertain circumstances (Boin et al., 2005). For media companies in Finland and Norway, the first spring of the pandemic brought on economic challenges in the form of rapid decreases in advertising revenue and related staff layoffs. However, in both countries, temporary governmental grants and similar economical support were provided, which dampened the negative effect of revenue losses (Ohlsson, Blach-Ørsten, and Willig 2021). Alongside this economical unrest, the audience interest in journalistic content grew rapidly, both in the form of increased online usage of products, and higher levels of trust towards media companies (Bjørgan and Moe 2021; Reunanen 2021).

For individual journalists and news workers, covering a pandemic is naturally something different than working with a sudden and unexpected crisis such as a terror attack (Tyson and Wild 2021). A pandemic continues for a long period and may include several stages of development. McInnes (2018) has described journalistic work in such long-wave events as consisting partly of periods with everyday news coverage of current developments, and partly of periods when the coverage is more reminiscent of news work with sudden crises. The latter periods may emerge when the situation changes nationally or regionally, in the COVID-19 case for instance during a sudden regional virus outbreak or when authorities release new restrictions that will limit the daily routines of citizens. During such periods, journalists may struggle more with high-stress issues such as an extensive workload and rapidly approaching deadlines.

Previous research on how work-related exposure to crises may affect journalists’ mental health has mainly focused on sudden events, such as terror attacks or natural disasters, or journalistic work in ongoing conflict zones or areas of war (Aoki et al. 2013; MacDonald, Saliba, and Hodgins 2016). In psychotraumatology, such events are called potentially traumatic events, meaning that those who witness the event—be it a citizen or someone experiencing the situation in their line of work—may develop long-term psychological problems due to the exposure and their potential reactions to it (American Psychiatric Association 2013; Weathers and Keane 2007).

For a journalist working in the pandemic context, a potentially traumatic event may for instance be when seeing distressing scenes while covering the pandemic at a hospital, or when taking part of upsetting details when interviewing affected. Thus, work during the pandemic may have included one or several potentially traumatic events for some, but not for all journalists. Research on journalists and sudden crises has shown that such exposure may lead to psychological impairment or substance abuse among some journalists (Smith et al. 2015). Trauma-related symptoms that have often been investigated include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, and scholars have shown that journalists, compared to citizens in general, have a somewhat heightened risk to develop long-lasting problems as a consequence of what they witness (Aoki et al. 2013; MacDonald, Hodgins et al. 2021).

As the pandemic is a long-lasting rather than sudden event, the most relevant approach to measure psychological distress in journalists is to date unclear. For instance, measurement of PTSD requires that the person studied has been exposed to a potentially traumatic event (American Psychiatric Association 2013). As stated above, some journalists may during the pandemic have had one or several such experiences, while others have not (Norrholm et al. 2021). Accordingly, in the studies published on the pandemic to date, some scholars have chosen to measure symptoms of specific trauma-related disorders such as PTSD in detail (Osmann, Selva, and Feinstein 2021; Tyson and Wild 2021). Others have taken a more general approach, asking journalists to indicate to what degree they because of the pandemic have experienced various forms of problems that may be related to psychological distress, such as sleeping problems or general anxiety, but without assuming that the journalist has been exposed to a potentially traumatic event (Crowley and Garthwaite 2020; Hoak 2021; International Federation of Journalists 2020; Posetti, Bell, and Brown 2021). For the field as a whole, both approaches may be relevant, as they contribute with pieces of information that complement each other.

Osmann, Selva, and Feinstein (2021) used the former approach and found that, in an international sample, 10% of journalists suffered from symptoms severe enough to be diagnosed with PTSD, and 26% from severe symptoms of anxiety. Tyson and Wild (2021) reported that 30% of journalists reporting repeatedly about the pandemic suffered from severe PTSD symptoms. The International Federation of Journalists (2020) and Posetti, Bell, and Brown (2021) used the latter approach in studies with relatively large international samples. Posetti, Bell, and Brown (2021) found that 82% had experienced at least one form of distress symptoms, with anxiety, fatigue, and sleeping problems being the most common. Seventy percent of participants thought that psychological stress was the most difficult consequence of their work with the pandemic. In a study with female journalists, the International Federation of Journalists (2020) reported that 78% had experienced an increased level of psychological stress and that 59% indicated that this had affected their health. In the sample, sleeping problems and muscle pain were the most common symptoms.

As the current study approached general samples of journalists in Finland and Norway, and exposure to a potentially traumatic event was not a study inclusion criterion, it used the latter measurement approach. Potential experiences of six types of distress during the pandemic were measured (see Method below for details), and a first research question (RQ) was formulated in relation to this:

RQ1: To what degree did Finnish and Norwegian journalists experience various forms of work-related psychological distress during the corona pandemic?

Previously, studies on sudden crises and journalists have pointed out that there are several factors specifically related to the journalistic assignment that may increase the risk of trauma-related psychological impairment (Monteiro, Marques Pinto, and Roberto 2016). Scholars have shown that the severity of exposure during an assignment, when for instance witnessing many gruesome details or interviewing several distressed victims, may be a risk factor for more post-assignment problems (MacDonald, Dale et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2015). Furthermore, studies on terror attacks and school shootings have shown that if journalists feel geographically close to the event, that it could have happened to them personally or to their family, this may increase the risk of psychological distress (Backholm and Björkqvist 2012; Berrington and Jemphrey 2003; Idås 2013).

The current study attempted to apply this knowledge to the pandemic context, by arguing that journalistic work with meeting and interviewing people that may be affected by the virus or belong to high-risk groups (such as medical personnel) includes features related to both above-mentioned risk factors. If being repeatedly in contact with such groups, the journalist may be exposed to an increased degree of trauma-related details. In addition, a journalist may experience that the crisis can affect you personally due to the risk of being infected or contributing to spreading the virus. Furthermore, at an early stage, the risks related to being infected are “invisible”, as it may take several days before one notices any Covid-19 symptoms. This may add to the negative stress among those who have to be in contact with high-risk groups in their work. Thus, the potential impact of work-related exposure to the virus on psychological distress severity was studied, and the following RQ was formulated:

RQ2: Was the potential risk of exposure to the virus during work assignments related to more psychological distress in the samples?

In addition to assignment-related risk factors, it is important to identify the potential impact organizational stressors such as established workplace structures, culture or expectations may have on journalists’ well-being (Coates Nee and Cueva Chacón 2021; Dworznik-Hoak 2020; Monteiro, Marques Pinto, and Roberto 2016). An organizational factor-related specifically to the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland and Norway (and many other countries) is the sudden shift from working physically at one’s office to work at home or a similar remote office for shorter or longer periods of time. Previous research on journalism and sudden crises has shown that demanding working conditions such as long hours or vast workloads may have a negative impact (Monteiro, Marques Pinto, and Roberto 2016; Weidmann and Papsdorf 2010), but these studies have naturally seldom studied challenges related to being displaced from one’s workplace due to the unfolding event.

Several studies on the pandemic have however mentioned the potential impact of this shift on psychological well-being. Hoak (2021) provided an extensive list of journalistic work challenges related to the pandemic and showed that for instance remote work in general, as well as managing news content remotely, were related to psychological stress. Crowley and Garthwaite (2020) found that the new working environment added to the negative stress, and the International Federation of Journalists (2020) mentioned challenges related to balancing between work tasks and childcare when working at home.

Another organizational factor related to the change of working environment is the organizational readiness to provide to social support. Studies on journalism and sudden crises (Backholm and Idås 2015; MacDonald, Dale, et al. 2021) as well as with the adult population in general (Brewin, Andrews, and Valentine 2000) have previously underlined the importance of workplace and peer social support as central protective factors against psychological impairment. In addition, some studies with journalist samples have shown that unofficial workplace recognition is important. Such recognition may be when leaders or colleagues give post-assignment positive feedback as a part of the everyday social interactions at the office (Idås, Backholm, and Korhonen 2019).

Some studies have highlighted the role of workplace social support as a protective factor against stress in the pandemic context. Posetti, Bell, and Brown (2021) found that over 70% of study participants indicated that support and opportunities to keep in contact with colleagues had been lacking. Hoak (2021) showed that more perceived supervisor support was related to less overall stress among journalists in the study. The current study investigates how the potential negative changes related to working at home or from a remote office may be related to psychological distress in the samples. As a part of this, the role of workplace social support is studied. A third and final RQ related to these potential risk factors was constructed:

RQ3: Were the potential negative challenges and/or diminished workplace social support due to the change to a home/remote office related to more psychological distress in the samples?

Method

Three cross-sectional online surveys were collected at various time points during the pandemic. Two were conducted with Norwegian news journalists (dataset 1 collected in June 2020; dataset 2 in December 2020), and one in Finland (dataset 3 in January/February 2021). The chosen countries represent a Nordic media welfare system in which journalists work in relatively stable conditions and with clear employer-employee regulations, and where the economic impact of the pandemic on media companies turned out to be limited (Ohlsson, Blach-Ørsten, and Willig 2021; Syvertsen et al. 2014). Information about how journalists in the countries experienced the pandemic is relevant for a broader audience as the study together with previous studies carried out in other media systems (e.g., International Federation of Journalists 2020) provides knowledge on to what degree journalists within varying systems and contexts still had similar psychological experiences during their work.

In the Nordic countries, a vast majority of journalists are members of the journalism unions. Study data was gathered in collaboration with the unions, who sent out the surveys to their members. Survey response rates for each dataset are not provided, as the unions could not extract data about members whose contact information was inactive. Each survey had a similar main structure, with minor changes added to reflect the national context at the time of data collection. Items used in this study were the same across datasets.

The choice to include one Finnish and two Norwegian datasets from varying time points was due to practical reasons and limitations set by the collaboration with unions, and the fact that data was collected during the ongoing pandemic. For instance, we strived to collect datasets from several similar countries and thus also contacted additional countries in the region and discussed timetables and possibilities for collection of additional datasets. However, time constraints and other ongoing research projects within unions resulted in limited access to membership lists and the three included datasets, collected at varying time points.

Other media/communication workers than journalists can be members in the unions, and for this study, only participants who worked with journalism were included. For instance, reporters were approached, as well as photographers and editors. Members working mainly as freelancers were not included. Due to union membership list restrictions, we were not able to identify to what degree participants overlapped between the two Norwegian datasets. The total number of respondents, and subsets of journalists included in this study, were as follows: dataset 1 Norway, in total 2617 participants, of which N = 2115 journalists were included in this study; dataset 2 Norway, 2218 participants, N = 1799 journalists, and dataset 3 Finland, 838 participants, N = 552 journalists.

Mean age of participants in each dataset were 46.56 (SD = 10.93), 46.61 (SD = 11.16), and 46.93 years (SD = 10.33). The number of females were n = 1014 (48%), n = 867 (48%), and n = 359 (65%). In datasets 1-2, females were significantly younger than males (dataset 1 females M = 45.05, males M = 47.97; t(2076) = 6.2, p < .001; dataset 2 females M = 44.92, males M = 48.25; t(1748) = 6.4, p < .001). The sample age distributions are relatively similar to those among all members in the unions (Norway total N = 8004, M = 44.42 years, females n = 3644, M = 43.12, males n = 4360, M = 45.52, T. Idås, personal communication, May 5, 2022; Finland total N = 10,052, M = 45.78, females n = 6117, M = 44.87, males n = 3935, M = 47.19, T. Aalto, personal communication, 5 May 2022).

To measure psychological distress (RQ1), six items were used, asking the participants to indicate to what degree they have experienced the following types of potential distress during the pandemic: insecurity, isolation, anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleeping difficulties (Appendix 1). Items consisted both of questions developed specifically for the pandemic context and of questions used in previous studies conducted by the Norwegian Union of Journalists on well-being in general (see e.g., Landsverk Hagen 2015). All items constructed for this study were discussed with boards of experts and media representatives connected to the unions in Finland and Norway and modified according to received feedback.

Five Likert response categories were used (not at all; to a small degree; to some degree; to a large degree; to a very large degree), in combination with a “cannot say/do not wish to answer” alternative. A sum scale was constructed based on the items, where a higher score represented more problems with psychological distress. A reliability assessment for the scale is not presented as the sum scale reflects exposure to various types of impairment rather than a unified underlying construct. In sum scales below with a similar structure, the same procedure is used.

To further investigate RQ1, in datasets 2–3 a question regarding whether the participant had been on sick leave due to psychological distress caused by the pandemic was included. The item was not included in the first dataset, as this data was collected relatively early after the national pandemic onset in Norway. In the Norwegian dataset, five Likert answer categories and a “cannot say/do not wish to answer” alternative were used (not at all; to a small degree; to some degree; to a large degree; to a very large degree), while the Finnish one used yes/no/cannot say response alternatives. Thus, to be able to compare data in the former dataset, Likert alternatives to some—to a very large degree were recoded as yes, remaining alternatives as no.

Potential risk of exposure to the virus during work assignments (RQ2) was measured with four items, measuring for instance whether the participant has been in contact with people that belonged to high-risk groups (Appendix 1). As the pandemic context is different from previous crises, items were constructed specifically for this study. Yes/no/cannot say response alternatives were used. A sum score was constructed, where a higher score represented being exposed to the virus to a larger degree.

The first part of RQ3, potentially negative experiences due to the change to a home/remote office, was measured with four items about for instance whether the participant had been working more extra hours or if one had struggled with insufficient work equipment when working at a home/a remote office (Appendix 1). Again, items had to be constructed specifically for this study. Five Likert response categories were used (in items 1–2 in Appendix 1 totally disagree; partly disagree; neither nor; partly agree; totally agree, in remaining items not at all; to a small degree; to some degree; to a large degree; to a very large degree). Participants who had not worked at a home/remote office at all could use a “cannot say/do not wish to answer” alternative and are thus excluded from RQ3 analyses below. For analyses, a sum score was constructed, in which a higher score indicated more negative experiences.

Changes in available workplace social support due to the change to a home/remote office (RQ3) were measured with four items, mapping whether participants experienced that their contact with leaders and colleagues regarding work-related issues in general or the corona situation in particular worked well (Appendix 1). Two items were constructed for this study, and two developed for previous studies (Thoresen 2007), and modified to fit the corona context. Likert answer categories and a “cannot say/do not wish to answer” alternative were used (not at all; to a small degree; to some degree; to a large degree; to a very large degree), and a sum scale was constructed. Higher scores represented more received social support. An analysis of internal consistency of the items showed Cronbach’s α = .79 (datasets 1–2) and .80 (dataset 3).

Group differences related to RQ1 were investigated using Student’s t-test and the approximation to t for unequal variances, as well as using the χ² test. A series of linear regression analyses was conducted to investigate RQs 2–3. We used an expectation maximation strategy to replace missing data. Pairwise deletion was used in analyses.

Results and Discussion

The first RQ focused on whether Finnish and Norwegian journalists had suffered from psychological distress during the first year of the pandemic. In the three datasets, approximately three out of four participants (dataset 1 n = 1558, 74%; dataset 2 n = 1369, 76%; dataset 3 n = 425, 77%) reported some form of distress. This was measured as having experienced one or more of the six categories measured to at least some degree. The prevalence of each subtype for the whole samples is presented in Table 1. Feeling isolated, anxious, or worn out were the most common subtypes across samples, as approximately 40– 50% of participants in each sample had experienced this.

Table 1. Prevalence of psychological distress subtypes and gender differences in the study.

Item	Prevalence in whole sample (%)^a	Group differences in prevalence among females/males (%)^a	Extensive problems, whole sample (%)^b	Group differences extensive problems, females/males (%)^b
I have during my work felt unsafe/insecure regarding whether I can catch the virus or contribute to others catching the virus	Dataset 1^c: 40 % Dataset 2^d: 36 % Dataset 3^e: 43 %	Dataset 1*: Females 43 %; males 38 % Dataset 2 ns Dataset 3 ns	Dataset 1: 10 % Dataset 2: 8 % Dataset 3: 15 %	Dataset 1 ns Dataset 2 ns Dataset 3 ns
I have felt isolated/alone as a consequence of the situation	Dataset 1: 37 % Dataset 2: 48 % Dataset 3: 53 %	Dataset 1*: Females 39 %; males 34 % Dataset 2**: Females 52 %; males 45 % Dataset 3**: Females 57 %; males 45 %	Dataset 1: 10 % Dataset 2: 15 % Dataset 3: 29 %	Dataset 1 ns Dataset 2***: Females 19 %; males 12 % Dataset 3**:  Females 33 %; males 21 %
I have felt anxiety as a consequence of the situation	Dataset 1: 40 % Dataset 2: 43 % Dataset 3: 50 %	Dataset 1***: Females 47 %; males 33 % Dataset 2***: Females 50 %; males 36 % Dataset 3*: Females 54 %; males 44 %	Dataset 1: 9 % Dataset 2: 11 % Dataset 3: 23 %	Dataset 1***: Females 11 %; males 7 % Dataset 2*: Females 13 %; males 10 % Dataset 3***: Females 27 %; males 14 %
I have felt depressed as a consequence of the situation	Dataset 1: 22 % Dataset 2: 33 % Dataset 3: 28 %	Dataset 1**: Females 25 %; males 20 % Dataset 2***: Females 38 %; males 29 % Dataset 3 ns	Dataset 1: 5 % Dataset 2: 9 % Dataset 3: 10 %	Dataset 1*: Females 6 %; males 4 % Dataset 2*: Females 10 %; males 7 % Dataset 3**: Females 12 %; males 6 %
I have felt worn out as a consequence of the situation	Dataset 1: 42 % Dataset 2: 53 % Dataset 3: 50 %	Dataset 1***: Females 48 %; males 36 % Dataset 2***: Females 58 %; males 48 % Dataset 3*: Females 53 %; males 44 %	Dataset 1: 15 % Dataset 2: 20 % Dataset 3: 26 %	Dataset 1***: Females 19 %; males 12 % Dataset 2***: Females 25 %; males 16 % Dataset 3**: Females 30 %; males 18 %
I have had sleeping difficulties as a consequence of the situation	Dataset 1: 23 % Dataset 2: 31 % Dataset 3: 31 %	Dataset 1***: Females 28 %; males 19 % Dataset 2***: Females 35 %; males 27 % Dataset 3 ns	Dataset 1: 6 % Dataset 2: 10 % Dataset 3: 12 %	Dataset 1**: Females 8 %; males 5 % Dataset 2**: Females 12 %; males 8 % Dataset 3*: Females 14 %; males 8 %

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

^a Having experienced the type of distress to at least some degree.

^b Having experienced the type of distress to a large or a very large degree.

^c Collected in Norway June 2020, N = 2115.

^d Collected in Norway December 2020, N = 1799.

^e Collected in Finland January/February 2021, N = 552.

An analysis of gender differences showed that more females (78–81%) than males (69–72%) had experienced some form of distress in all three samples (dataset 1 females n = 795, 78% vs. males n = 760, 69%, χ² (1)  =  22.91, p < .001; dataset 2 females n = 701, 81% vs. males n = 661, 72%, χ² (1)  =  20.98, p < .001; dataset 3 females n = 291, 81% vs. males n = 133, 70%, χ² (1)  =  9.21, p = .002). In Table 1, gender differences regarding each distress subtype are presented. Several differences were found, and in all cases more females than males had experienced the psychological distress subtype.

To investigate the severity of distress in more detail, we asked to what extent participants had experienced extensive problems with at least one psychological impairment subtype (experiencing the type to a large or a very large degree). In the Norwegian samples approximately one-third of participants (dataset 1 n = 601, 28%; dataset 2 n = 609, 34%), and in the Finnish group almost half of the sample (dataset 3 n = 259, 47%) reported severe problems related to at least one distress subtype. Figures for each subtype are found in Table 1. Participants had experienced most problems with feeling isolated or worn out, with between 10 and 30% of journalists in the samples reporting extensive problems with these subtypes.

Gender differences were analysed, and significantly more females (33–53%) than males (24–36%) reported severe problems across all datasets (dataset 1 females n = 334, 33% vs. males n = 264, 24%, χ² (1)  =  20.68, p < .001; dataset 2 females n = 338, 39% vs. males n = 267, 29%, χ² (1)  =  20.21, p < .001; dataset 3 females n = 190, 53% vs. males n = 68, 36%, χ² (1)  =  15.02, < .001). Gender differences regarding each subtype are presented in Table 1. Again, several gender differences were found, and in all cases more females reported having experienced problems with the impairment subtype.

On the psychological distress sum scale, based on a total sum of Likert responses to distress subtypes (possible range 6–30), the samples reported similar means (dataset 1 M = 12.80, SD = 4.42; dataset 2 M = 14.00, SD = 4.79; dataset 3 M = 14.33, SD = 5.33). In accordance with results above, an analysis of gender differences showed that females reported significantly higher means (dataset 1 females M = 13.40, SD = 4.42 vs. males M = 12.22, SD = 4.33, t(2110) = 6.2, p < .001; dataset 2 females M = 14.68, SD = 4.81 vs. males M = 13.34, SD = 4.66, t(1788) = 6.0, p < .001; and dataset 3 females M = 15.00, SD = 5.38 vs. males M = 13.10, SD = 5.01, t(548) = 4.0, p < .001). As a final item related to RQ1, in datasets 2-3, participants were asked whether they had been on sick leave due to the psychological distress experienced during the pandemic. A small, and relatively similar proportion of the total samples in the two countries had been on sick leave: in the Norwegian sample 3% (dataset 2; n = 61), and in the Finnish sample 4% (n = 22).

The results are in line with the international studies on the topic so far (International Federation of Journalists 2020; Posetti, Bell, and Brown 2021). In these, between 78 and 82% of participants had experienced at least one of the measured symptoms of psychological distress, while between 74 and 77% of the current samples reported similar problems. In addition, the results clearly show that female journalists experienced more distress than males. The results support previous studies that have found similar gender differences (Hoak 2021; Osmann, Selva, and Feinstein 2021). For instance, International Federation of Journalists (2020) has proposed that gender differences may partly be explained by factors not included in this study, such as larger expectations on females to take care of domestic work and home-schooling when working remotely. Furthermore, studies on sudden crises and PTSD among the adult population, in general, have usually shown that female gender is related to more distress, and scholars have proposed that this may be explained by combinations of several factors, including different coping mechanisms between genders, variations in psychobiological responses to stress, and differences regarding previous trauma history (see e.g., Brewin, Andrews, and Valentine 2000 and Olff 2017). The role of gender-related factors thus clearly needs more focus in future studies with journalism samples.

Taken together, results related to RQ1 add to the growing data that suggests that journalistic work with the pandemic has had a negative psychological impact, to at least some degree, on a majority of journalists. However, results from the current and previous studies are not directly comparable to each other, as the range and subtypes of measured distress vary. Furthermore, it is important to remember that having experienced for instance anxiety to some degree during the pandemic does not mean that you are suffering from severe symptoms. To investigate severity of symptoms in more detail, future studies should use an approach similar to Osmann, Selva, and Feinstein (2021) and Tyson and Wild (2021), and measure prevalence of specific trauma-related disorders with well-established questionnaires.

RQs 2–3 focused on the potential impact of work-related risk factors on the level of psychological distress. A series of linear regression analyses were conducted to investigate both RQs; if a large degree of exposure to the virus during work assignments, more negative experiences due to the change to a home/remote office, and/or diminished social support from leaders or colleagues predicted increased psychological impairment among study participants in datasets 1–3. Participants with no experience of working at a home/remote office were excluded from regression analyses below. Since females reported larger degrees of psychological distress, regression analyses were conducted for total samples as well as with genders separately. Results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of regression analyses of the predictive effects of risk factors for psychological distress in the samples. Analyses conducted for total samples and genders separately.

	B^a	SE B	β
Dataset 1, Norway June 2020, n = 1862
Whole sample (R = .46, R^2 = .21, Adj. R^2 = .21) Virus exposure during work Negative experiences due to remote work More work-related social support	0.43 0.51 −0.43	0.13 0.04 0.04	.07*** .31*** −.26***
Females (R = .47, R^2 = .22, Adj. R^2 = .21) Virus exposure during work Negative experiences due to remote work More work-related social support	0.48 0.53 −0.40	0.19 0.05 0.05	.07* .33*** −.24***
Males (R = .45, R^2 = .20, Adj. R^2 = .20) Virus exposure during work Negative experiences due to remote work More work-related social support	0.50 0.48 −0.45	0.17 0.05 0.05	.09*** .29** −.27***
Dataset 2, Norway December 2020, n = 1529
Whole sample (R = .50, R^2 = .25, Adj. R^2 = .24) Virus exposure during work Negative experiences due to remote work More work-related social support	0.50 0.59 −0.44	0.14 0.04 0.04	.08*** .35*** −.25***
Females (R = .50, R^2 = .25, Adj. R^2 = .25) Virus exposure during work Negative experiences due to remote work More work-related social support	0.52 0.66 −0.34	0.21 0.06 0.06	.08*** .40* −.20***
Males (R = .50, R^2 = .25, Adj. R^2 = .25) Virus exposure during work Negative experiences due to remote work More work-related social support	0.64 0.50 −0.51	0.18 0.05 0.06	.11*** .30*** −.30***
Dataset 3, Finland January/February 2021, n = 468
Whole sample (R = .44, R^2 = .19, Adj. R^2 = .19) Virus exposure during work Negative experiences due to remote work More work-related social support	−0.20 0.49 −0.38	0.28 0.07 0.07	−.03 .33*** −.22***
Females (R = .41, R^2 = .17, Adj. R^2 = .16) Virus exposure during work Negative experiences due to remote work More work-related social support	−0.17 0.48 −0.33	0.36 0.08 0.09	−.02 .31*** −.20***
Males (R = .51, R^2 = .26, Adj. R^2 = .25) Virus exposure during work Negative experiences due to remote work More work-related social support	−0.11 0.53 −0.40	0.43 0.10 0.13	−.02 .39*** −.24**

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

^a B is the unstandardized regression coefficient.

In regard to virus exposure during work assignments (RQ2), across datasets, between 5 and 8% of participants reported having been in close contact with one or several people with a confirmed coronavirus, 31–52% physically close to many different people, and 10–21% physically close to people that belong to high-risk groups. A few participants, 0.3–0.4%, had caught the coronavirus while working. In the exposure to the virus during work assignments sum scale participants reported means of 0.54–0.79 (possible range of virus exposure subtypes 0–4; dataset 1 M = 0.54, SD = 0.71; dataset 2 M = 0.79, SD = 0.78; dataset 3 M = 0.70, SD = 0.79). The predictive effect of the subscale on psychological distress varied between samples. In the two larger datasets, collected in Norway, more virus exposure predicted more distress in whole samples as well as in analyses of genders separately, while in the Finnish dataset a similar result was not found (Table 2).

Previous research on the psychological impact of work with sudden crises on journalists has shown that exposure to more severe details during an assignment (MacDonald, Dale et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2015), or to an assignment that gets close to the journalist’s personal life (Backholm and Björkqvist 2012; Berrington and Jemphrey 2003; Idås 2013), may increase the risk of subsequent psychological distress. In the current study, increased potential exposure to the virus via work assignments was argued to include aspects of both risk factors and to include “invisible” risks due to symptoms emerging some days after being infected. Thus, more exposure should have been related to more psychological distress in the samples.

The results partially supported this assumption. All items used to measure the virus exposure risk factor were developed specifically for this study, which may have contributed to the discrepancy between samples. The items should thus be refined further for future studies, and results regarding RQ2 interpreted carefully. Contextual differences regarding work strategies between Finland and Norway, or the varying sample sizes, may also have contributed to the results. However, as few other studies to date have included information on the potential impact of virus exposure on journalists’ well-being, the current results provide some valuable preliminary results on this topic.

The first part of RQ 3 focused on the potential effect of an organizational stressor, negative experiences due to the change to a home/remote office on the level of psychological distress. Among participants in the datasets, 61–83% reported working more extra hours when working remotely, while 66–93% thought that the difference between work hours and non-work has been blurred out. Between 31 and 37% experienced more difficulties to focus on work tasks than usual, and 26–42% suffered from insufficient work equipment when working at a remote office. The negative experiences sum scale (possible range 4–20) included means between 11.08 and 11.58 (dataset 1 M = 11.08, SD = 2.64; dataset 2 M = 11.58, SD = 2.85; dataset 3 M = 11.51, SD = 3.56). There was a significant predictive effect of the negative experiences due to the change to a home/remote office subscale on psychological distress in all three samples, for whole samples as well as in analyses with females and males separately. More negative experiences predicted more psychological distress across samples.

The results regarding RQ3 are in line with previous studies. Participants who had experienced several negative challenges due to the shift to home or remote offices reported higher levels of psychological distress. Crowley and Garthwaite (2020), Hoak (2021), and International Federation of Journalists (2020) have highlighted the negative impact of challenges related to for instance balancing between childcare or homeschooling and doing journalistic work. The current study contributes to the field by grouping various forms of challenges together and showing that they are clearly related to more psychological distress.

In the second part of RQ3, the role of workplace social support was investigated. In the samples, 79–92% reported that they had had good contact with their closest leaders regarding everyday work, and 75–88% reported a similar well-functioning contact with colleagues. Similar findings were found in regard to being in contact about pandemic-related issues: 78–90%, felt that they could talk to a leader if necessary, and 80–92% to a colleague. High scores on the social support sum scale (possible range 4–20) indicated having strong support from work leaders and colleagues. The samples reported means between 15.24 and 15.81 (dataset 1 M = 15.44, SD = 2.64; dataset 2 M = 15.24, SD = 2.73; dataset 3 M = 15.81, SD = 3.11). The regression analyses showed that more social support had a significant negative predictive effect on more psychological distress in all three samples, for whole samples and in analyses with females or males. Thus, having received less work-related social support was linked to more psychological distress in the samples.

The study underlines the importance of work-related support as a buffer against psychological distress during the pandemic, as previously proposed by Hoak (2021). The important role of social support is well-known from studies on journalists and sudden crises (Backholm and Idås 2015; MacDonald, Dale et al. 2021), and the current study provides more support to this body of knowledge. Participants in the current study seemed to have better opportunities for social support than in the study by Posetti, Bell, and Brown (2021), as over 70% in their study reported that support was lacking. This discrepancy may however be due to variations in how the topic was measured in the studies, or to contextual differences in the countries investigated.

Conclusions

The overall aim of this study was to investigate how the pandemic affected Finnish and Norwegian journalists’ psychological health from the crisis outbreak in 2020 and one year forward. It attempted to apply knowledge from previous studies about sudden crises and psychological well-being on a long-wave pandemic context (Aoki et al. 2013; MacDonald, Saliba, and Hodgins 2016; McInnes 2018) and was thus positioned in the intersection between journalism and psychotraumatology.

Study results showed that the impact of pandemic-related work on journalists’ psychological health only partly can be understood in terms of psychotraumatology. For instance, exposure to potentially traumatic events (American Psychiatric Association 2013; Weathers and Keane 2007) was in the study measured as the range of potential virus exposure in line of work, and more exposure was related to more distress. This clearly supports the within psychotraumatology well-known link between exposure to such events and psychological impairment.

However, during the pandemic, some journalists will have experienced such exposure, while others have not. Therefore, risk factors framed as potentially traumatic exposure will only provide a partial explanation of the challenges for journalists (Norrholm et al. 2021). In addition, an understanding of organizational stressors is needed. In the pandemic, a central stressor was when everyday journalistic work practices needed to be redefined, and practical restrictions in social interactions introduced (Hoak 2021; International Federation of Journalists 2020; Monteiro, Marques Pinto, and Roberto 2016). Such stressors were in this study measured by investigating negative changes when working remotely and the related potential lack of workplace social support—and both were clearly related to more psychological impairment.

This illustrates the complexity related to understanding the impact of the pandemic on journalists’ psychological health. Recently published studies (Bernadas and Ilagan 2020; Perreault and Perreault 2021) have shown that another dimension of organizational stressors, not measured in this study, also may influence journalists’ psychological health during the pandemic. These studies show that factors affecting the journalism industry in general and individual work tasks already before the pandemic onset, such as economic cutbacks or dealing with misinformation issues, may be an underlying factor adding to the personal stress of some journalists during the pandemic. Thus, when attempting to frame the impact of the pandemic, scholars should apply a holistic approach in which the micro-, meso- and macro-levels of the occupational group—such as experiences and personality of the individual journalists, long-term organizational work culture, and wider work-related changes brought on by the pandemic—are taken into account (Clarke et al. 2015).

Finally, some limitations affecting the generalizability of the current study should be pointed out. Several survey items were constructed or modified to fit the pandemic context, and these should be further tested in other samples. Furthermore, the study had a cross-sectional design, and thus any direct comparison between datasets over time should be done with caution.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Tuomas Aalto and Heini Ruohonen for valuable comments during the work with this project.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix 1.

Items used in the current study

Table

Items on the prevalence of psychological distress (RQ1)

I have during my work felt unsafe/insecure regarding whether I can catch the virus or contribute to others catching the virus  I have felt isolated/alone as a consequence of the situation  I have felt anxiety as a consequence of the situation I have felt depressed as a consequence of the situation  I have felt worn out as a consequence of the situation I have had sleeping difficulties as a consequence of the situation

Items on potential risk of exposure to the virus during work assignments (RQ2)

I have during work been in close contact with one or several people who have had a confirmed coronavirus  I have during work been physically close to many different people (for example colleagues, sources or similar)  I have during work been physically close to people that belong to high-risk groups (for example employees within healthcare, hospitals or similar)  I have caught the coronavirus while working

Items on potential negative experiences due to the change to a home/remote office (RQ 3)

I work more extra hours per week when I work at home/from a remote office  The difference between work hours and hours outside work is blurred out when I work at home/from a remote office It is more difficult for me to focus on work tasks when I work at home/from a remote office  I have insufficient work equipment when I work at home/from a remote office

Items on potential changes in workplace social support due to the change to a home/remote office (RQ 3)

I have had good contact with my closest leaders or other representatives for the employer in my everyday work I have had good contact with my colleagues in my everyday work If I need to, I can talk to a leader at work or another representative of the employer about problems/challenges that have emerged because of the corona crisis  If I need to, I can talk to a colleague at work about problems/challenges that have emerged because of the corona crisis