Study warns of chilling effect of newspaper raid
Staff writer
A study published last week in the peer-reviewed Journal of Communication Inquiry has coined the term “shared press distress” to describe chilling effects on other journalists of the 2023 raid on the Marion County Record newsroom and two homes.
The study, by University of Kansas professor Steve Wohlgast and University of Missouri professor Nick Mathews, is the result of confidential, in-depth interviews with 19 reporters, editors, and publishers across Kansas.
“Alarmingly,” the authors wrote, the study “reveals concerns of self-censorship, with journalists reevaluating their editorial practices due to fear of retaliation.”
Initial reactions focused on disbelief over “perceived violation of press freedoms,” the authors concluded.
“On the practical side,” they wrote, “witnessing . . . a perceived retaliatory raid for carrying out the core function of accountability journalism compelled them to reassess themselves, raising difficult questions about the risks of holding the powerful in check.”
The study found that other journalists regarded the raid as “an attack not just on one newsroom but on journalism itself.”
They worried about their financial capacity to challenge such breaches of press freedom, questioned their relationships with local law enforcement, and contemplated adjusting the tone of their reporting out of fear of retaliation, the authors wrote.
“Even in the best of times,” the reseachers wrote, “journalism is a profession of intense pressure — juggling tight deadlines, ever-present digital demands, and a cutthroat, competitive climate. These challenges are even more pronounced in small, rural news organizations.”
Study participants struggled to grapple with an event they’d never imagined happening and with press protections they had taken for granted proving more fragile than they had believed, the authors wrote.
“I remember feeling like my gut had been punched,” one participant was quoted as saying. “It just hit me really hard that this would actually happen in the United States.”
Another ominously added: “But with the current political landscape and people’s general attitude and valuing of news, it doesn’t surprise me.”
A third noted: “I feel like we’re potentially targeted.”
“There’s a sense,” a fourth was quoted as saying, “that if they can get away with this, it’ll be open season on all of us.”
The most concerning revelation, the authors wrote, was that journalists questioned whether to alter their reporting and scale back critical coverage for fear of retaliation.
“You hate to say you’re going to temper your coverage, but maybe not put it all out there,” one journalist was quoted as saying.
Another admitted to considering changes in coverage to “protect myself” and avoid encountering “that kind of thing.”
“You never know what might happen, what story we might work on, and who might start to get resentment and want to abuse their power,” the journalist went on to say.
While other journalists did not explicitly suggest altering reporting, the authors wrote that they acknowledged that the raid would increase their vigilance, prompting them to approach critical coverage of local officials with greater caution.
“Do I do investigative reporting? Absolutely,” one participant was quoted as saying. “Would I want to face what the Marion County Record went through? Absolutely not.”
The reason, the participant said, is rooted in “self-preservation.
“I don’t have a lot of legal resources to fall back on,” the respondent was quoted as saying.
Another echoed the sentiment, saying, “We don’t have the resources to go fight something like this.”
Many respondents said they had good relationships with local officials, but the authors worried that “while strong relationships with local officials offer a sense of security, they also raise the uncomfortable question of whether such closeness could compromise their role of holding the powerful accountable.”
Assaults on the press “reverberate far beyond individual reporters or isolated events,” the authors wrote. “Ultimately, shared press distress results not from direct exposure to trauma but from the far-reaching ripple effect one journalist’s trauma can have on others in the profession. . . .
“The urgency of investigating shared press distress cannot be overstated. As threats to press freedom and the stability of the profession intensify, it is imperative to understand and address the collective and individual costs borne by journalists, and to develop measures that sustain both professional independence and emotional resilience.”