Mexican journalists and journalists covering war: a comparison of psychological wellbeing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose War journalists confront many dangers, leaving them at risk for mental health problems. They are, however, able to take breaks from the hazards of frontline work by periodically leaving conflict zones for the safety of home. This respite is not afforded local journalists who cover conflict situations. An example of this may be found in Mexico where journalists reporting on the drug cartels may under threat. This inability to seek temporary respite from grave danger may theoretically increase levels of psychological distress. The purpose of this paper is to examine this possibility. Design/methodology/approach The study sample comprised 104 Mexican journalists and a control group of 104 war journalists (non‐Mexican, demographically matched). Outcome measures included indices of posttraumatic stress disorder (Impact of Event Scale‐Revised)(IES‐R), depression (Beck Depression Inventory‐Revised (BDI‐II) and psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire‐28 (GHQ‐28). Findings Mexican journalists had higher scores on the avoidance ( p =0.01), arousal ( p =0.0001), but not intrusion ( p =0.29) scales of the IES‐R. They had higher scores on the BDI‐II ( p =0.0001) and anxiety ( p =0.0001), somatic ( p =0.0001) and social dysfunction ( p =0.01) subscales of the GHQ‐28. Practical implications Mexican journalists targeted by drug cartels have more psychopathology than journalists who cover war. News organisations that employ journalists in this line of work therefore need to be aware of this and have a mechanism in place to provide treatment, when needed. Originality/value This is the first study to directly explore the psychological effects of violence on local journalists who do not cover war, but nevertheless live and work in areas of grave danger.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".