Journalistic practice in times of crisis: A scoping review of role shifts and challenges tied to news production under extraordinary conditions

To structure this review, it is necessary to define what constitutes a crisis. Crisis communication research commonly differentiates between types of crises based on their origins – such as natural disasters, terror attacks, pandemics, or conflicts (Ghersetti & Odén, 2024). Nord and Strömbäck (2006: 89) proposed a typology of four distinct crisis types based on the level of media preparedness: Type I refers to “new and surprising events” that have not been experienced before, and for which media preparations and existing routines are low (e.g., the 2011 Utøya attack in Norway); Type II involves new crises that develop over time and are therefore possible to prepare for, such as Covid-19 (while pandemics have occurred before, the novel nature of the virus and the scale of the outbreak rendered it a new kind of crisis); Type III includes sudden events that have occurred before (e.g., the Haiti earthquake in 2010); and Type IV refers to expected crises, for which the media can be expected to have well-established routines and preparedness (e.g., the so-called refugee crises in 2015–2016). These frameworks help contextualise how journalists operate under different crisis conditions.

Research in crisis communication (see, e.g., Figenschou & Beyer, 2014; Frandsen & Johansen, 2016; Fonn & Hyde-Clarke, 2023) has contributed to an understanding of how news content is framed during crises. However, newsroom decision-making and ethical considerations in crisis settings remain underexplored. Crises are typically unexpected, dramatic, and marked by significant societal consequences, making them high-priority news events (Harcup & O’Neill, 2016). Olsson (2010) further defined crises as events that disrupt organisational norms and demand immediate journalistic response. The early stages of crises are particularly characterised by uncertainty, requiring journalists to make rapid editorial decisions that may have lasting implications (Ghersetti & Odén, 2024: 280). Crisis events frequently challenge established journalistic norms and values, with studies (e.g., Andén-Papadopoulos & Pantti, 2013; Deuze, 2005; Wahl-Jorgensen, 2013) showing that core ideals such as objectivity, verification, and detachment often come under pressure in these situations. Moreover, journalists’ personal experiences and emotions may become entangled with their professional roles, making ethical dilemmas more pronounced during crises (van Zoonen, 1998). Together, these studies underscore the importance of examining not only what journalists report during crises, but also how they navigate their professional roles, ethical dilemmas, and practical constraints under volatile and emotionally charged conditions – an approach that guides this review.

Sampling was conducted in several steps. First, we searched the databases Web of Science, ProQuest, and Scopus, restricting the results to peer-reviewed journal articles written in English, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian. The search string included the following terms: [(“media practice”) OR (“journalis*”)] AND (crisis OR crises) AND (scandinavia* OR sweden OR iceland OR norway OR finland OR denmark OR greenland OR nordic OR swedish OR icelandic OR norwegian OR finnish OR danish OR greenlandic). The search yielded 110 publications, excluding duplicates, which contained the specified terms in their abstracts, titles, or keywords.

In the second step, we conducted a strategic search in the Swedish database DiVA, and the Research Portal Denmark, resulting in the addition of two articles not identified in the initial search. These were subsequently added to the sample. We further expanded our sampling through hand-searching specialist journals, reference lists, academic books, and doctoral dissertations. This additional search resulted in 9 more documents being included in the dataset. Overall, the sampling procedure resulted in 121 documents for further review.

In the next step, we reviewed the abstracts of the 121 documents, excluding 77 that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Common reasons for exclusion included a focus on crises unrelated to the scope of our study (e.g., the “crisis of journalism”) or an emphasis on media content rather than journalistic practice. After these exclusions, 44 documents remained for a full-text review.

The full-text review involved a closer examination of empirical focus and alignment with the scope of the review. Following this, 12 additional documents were excluded. Ultimately, 32 documents were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria and included in the final sample. In cases where reviewed studies were designed as several sub-studies, only sub-studies that met the inclusion criteria were coded. For books, the classification varied between treating them as a single unit or examining individual chapters, depending on the empirical material and structure of the book.

We analysed the documents in the final sample in close collaboration, developing a coding template that we applied to each document. The coding process captured basic information such as research method, year of publication, and study characteristics, including the geographic focus, media type (e.g., television, print), the specific crisis, and type of practice (e.g., technological). Crises were further categorised based on their location in relation to the news organisation or journalists in focus for each study (e.g., global, foreign, domestic). To comprehensively assess the focus of each study, the template also included text-entry fields. Departing from Shoemaker and Reese (1996), we coded each study according to the level of practice (e.g., individual, routines, organisational) studied. This was done in order to capture the effects of a crisis on different levels of journalistic practice.

Additionally, we analysed each study with particular attention to factors affecting the democratic function of journalism during crises. Drawing on Kovach and Rosenstiel (2021), we focused on how crises impact journalism’s core democratic functions, including providing accurate and independent information, monitoring those in power, serving citizens, providing a forum for public debate, and respecting the rights of sources and subjects. We examined how the ability to uphold these ideals might be undermined or even re-evaluated during extraordinary conditions, considering the practical, political, societal, and economic circumstances that arise during crisis events. The outcome of this analysis was interpreted through the concept of journalistic role performance (Mellado, 2015; Hanitzsch & Vos, 2017) and contextualised in relation to the Nordic media system (Brüggemann et al., 2014; Hallin & Mancini, 2004). More specifically, we analysed the studies using Mellado’s (2015) six dimensions of journalistic role performance as a guiding framework, with particular attention to how crises influence shifts between roles such as watchdog, loyal facilitator, and civic. We specifically draw on the notion of narrated role performance (Hanitzsch & Vos, 2017) in the review, referring to how journalists articulate and reflect on their practice.

In the final stage, we extracted themes based on the template and through parallel close reading of the documents. Our analysis aimed not only to provide an overview of the scope and content of research on journalistic practice during crises, but to deepen the understanding of potential challenges linked to producing journalism under extraordinary conditions.

For this review, we identified 32 academic publications on journalistic practice during crises, with a specific focus on the Nordic context. Although we did not limit the search in time, no works meeting the inclusion criteria were published before 2007. The first publication was followed by sporadic activity until 2015. From 2016 onward, we observe a modest yet steady increase in research (see Figure 1). In 2022, there was a noticeable peak, likely explained by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in late 2019. Four out of the five works published in 2022 focused on the pandemic.

Figure 1

Number of publications by year, 2007–2024

The geographical focus of each study was determined by the location of the news organisation or journalist under examination. For example, the article by Englund and colleagues (2023), which investigates Swedish and Norwegian journalists reporting on the 2010 Haiti earthquake, is categorised as having a geographical focus on Norway and Sweden. In examining the geographical distribution of the sample, we find that three countries have received comparable attention from researchers: 14 studies focus solely or partly on Norway, while Finland and Sweden are covered in 12 studies each. In contrast, Denmark and Iceland have received limited attention, with only three studies addressing Denmark and one study including Iceland.

In terms of specific crises, two stand out as having attracted significant research interest. Of the 32 studies in the sample, 10 examine journalistic practice during the Covid-19 pandemic, and 8 focus on the 2011 terror attack in Oslo and Utøya. Together, these two crises account for well over half of the total sample. Other crises that have been examined in more than one study include the September 11 terror attacks in the US (3 studies), the so-called refugee crisis in 2015–2016 (3 studies), and the 2017 terror attack at Drottninggatan in Sweden (2 studies). The uneven geographical distribution of research, with limited focus on Denmark and Iceland, cannot be explained by the occurrence of more or greater crises in certain Nordic countries. For instance, the global scope of the Covid-19 pandemic and Iceland’s history of volcanic eruptions suggest that such explanations are insufficient.

Methodologically, the majority of the reviewed studies are based on interviews supplemented by a few surveys. This methodological preference is unsurprising, as the type of journalistic practice in focus for this review is likely to be best accessed through interviews or observation. The lack of observational studies raises the challenge of studying journalistic practice in real time during crises, given the unpredictable, sometimes dangerous, and disruptive nature of crises. One challenge associated with this methodological limitation is the difficulty of identifying potential discrepancies between actual and narrated practice (Hanitzsch & Vos, 2017).

Role performance in relation to power becomes particularly pronounced during crises, when the tension between watchdog journalism and loyal facilitation surfaces. The reviewed studies show how these roles shift depending on the crisis phase and political pressures. Exploring journalistic roles, the power domain deals with the relationship between journalists and those in power (Mellado, 2015). Within this domain, two roles are distinguished: the watchdog role, in which journalists see their role as monitoring those in power, and the loyal-facilitator role, where journalists act as spokespersons for those in power (Hallin et al., 2023). The Worlds of Journalism study (country reports) (2017) shows that across the Nordic countries, journalists consider supporting government policies and conveying a positive image of political leadership to be among their least important tasks. However, the rapid and unpredictable nature of crises often forces newsrooms to make swift decisions about what, when, how, and where to report. In these situations, journalism’s role – whether to inform, serve as a watchdog, or provide a forum for debate – has been the subject of extensive debate. Several of the reviewed studies (e.g., Andén-Papadopoulos & Pantti, 2013; Koljonen et al., 2011; Ojala & Pöyhtäri, 2018; Pantti & Ojala, 2019) underscore journalism’s service and civic role, providing essential information to citizens, particularly during crises, when reliable and timely updates about safety, resources, and unfolding events are critical.

While the role of journalists as watchdogs (Mellado, 2015) remains central during crises when the actions of those in power may require heightened scrutiny, the reviewed studies reveal challenges to this role. These include political pressure (Ojala & Pöyhtäri, 2018; Pantti & Ojala, 2019), self-censorship (Nilsson, 2020), and a perceived need to present a unified national front in times of crisis (Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018). Studies from various contexts (e.g., Olsson et al., 2015; Reynolds & Barnett, 2003; Zandberg & Neiger, 2005) stress the risk of the news media adjusting their reporting style and focus to align with national interests during national crises. Especially in the acute phases of a crisis, journalists tend to take on a service role and a loyal-facilitator role (Mellado, 2015) rather than that of watchdog. The reviewed sample supports the notion that one of the key challenges for journalists during national or global crises is balancing their role in supporting government messaging with their responsibility of maintaining critical scrutiny (Blach-Ørsten et al., 2023; Klemm et al., 2019). In the early phase of a crisis, media often “rally around the flag”, closely aligning with government narratives (Blach-Ørsten et al., 2023; Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018). In a Nordic context, the tendency to curtail critical scrutiny in favour of information dissemination and collaboration with authorities is observed across various crises and contexts (e.g., Appelgren, 2022; Blach-Ørsten et al., 2023; Klemm et al., 2019; Konow-Lund et al., 2024; Olsen & Furseth, 2023). Critical and investigative journalism tends to take a backseat due to limited access to information and a journalistic focus on disseminating information to ensure public safety (Konow-Lund et al., 2024). In the wake of the 2011 Utøya attack, Norwegian media temporarily shifted from conflict-oriented reporting to a more empathetic tone, reflecting a perceived need for national unity (Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018). This included suspending pre-written opinion pieces that were deemed out of touch with the aftermath of the attack. This alignment, while understandable in the short term, raises concerns about long-term democratic accountability. While Mellado (2015) has emphasised that the watchdog and loyal-facilitator roles are not inherently oppositional and may coexist depending on context, the reviewed studies suggest that during crises, the balance between these roles shifts. The subdued watchdog role observed in Nordic crisis reporting often coincides with enhanced loyal-facilitator performance, where journalists act as national unifiers or transmitters of official discourse. This reflects a normative alignment with the loyal-facilitator role, particularly in the acute phase of Type I and II crises, when societal cohesion becomes a journalistic priority.

Crises place significant pressure on editorial decisions, especially when determining the appropriateness of discourse. Editors may suppress dissenting voices or controversial opinions to maintain national unity, potentially silencing alternative viewpoints (Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018). During the 2011 Utøya attack, VG Nett, for instance, chose not to publish conflicting claims of responsibility from an Islamic group, despite international outlets reporting on it (Konow-Lund & Olsson, 2016). Such editorial choices, while made to prevent confusion, pose democratic challenges by potentially skewing public understanding of the crisis.

In their study of journalistic practice and press freedom in four southern European countries during the Covid-19 pandemic, Price and colleagues (2024) demonstrated how authorities employed practices to restrict journalists’ access to information, impeding critical scrutiny. Challenges that surfaced within the Nordic context during the pandemic include restricted access to information not solely due to a reluctance by authorities, but because of their difficulty managing increased demands (Blach-Ørsten et al., 2023; Konow-Lund et al., 2024). Practical limitations during the Covid-19 pandemic, such as travel restrictions and the inability to meet sources physically, further aggravated information gathering. While digital platforms offer new opportunities for interaction, studies (e.g., Konow-Lund et al., 2024) show that these platforms cannot replace the nuances gained from physical encounters with sources and audiences.

The reviewed studies indicate that shifts in journalistic roles vis-à-vis power during crises are influenced by a range of contextual factors. Situational demands such as uncertainty, time pressure, and heightened societal tensions, as well as professional characteristics like specialised expertise, shape the extent to which journalists experience role conflicts and navigate competing expectations (Klemm et al., 2019; Konow-Lund et al., 2019; Ojala & Pöyhtäri, 2018). These factors can render certain contexts particularly challenging, making some journalists more susceptible to role conflicts than others.

Within the audience domain (Mellado, 2015), including the civic, service, and infotainment roles, this review reveals how journalists adapt to heightened information needs and emotional demands during crises. In this section, we discuss this aspect by exploring the ways in which journalistic practice, based on the reviewed studies, is adapted in relation to audience needs. The sample illustrates two types of interrelated challenges within this domain faced by journalists and media organisations during crises. Following Olsen and Furseth (2023), these can be categorised as internal challenges, related to news production and media organisations, and external challenges, which are related to audience needs. Crisis intensifies audience needs for fast, accurate, and relevant information. Meeting these demands can involve developing new services (Konow-Lund & Wiik, 2024), as well as prioritising social responsibility by offering content free of charge (Olsen & Furseth, 2023). At the same time that crises accelerate transformation, they can amplify existing challenges, such as the tension between business interests and the social responsibility of journalism (Olsen & Furseth, 2023), and expose the differences between well-resourced and under-resourced newsrooms (Konow-Lund et al., 2024; Túñez-López et al., 2020).

While local media is an important source of information during crises (Olsen & Furseth, 2023; Ytre-Arne & Moe, 2023), smaller media outlets, including local and minority-language media, face heightened challenges (Blach-Ørsten et al., 2023; Stenberg-Sirén, 2021). These challenges are both financial and practical, as they often lack the resources of major news outlets. This results in greater difficulties in adjusting working methods, shifting to digital production, and gaining access to critical information. Such circumstances hinder the fulfilment of their service and civic roles. Olsen and Furseth (2023) have highlighted how local Norwegian newspapers faced the dilemma of whether to restrict access to crucial information through paywalls or allow free public access to ensure broad dissemination during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Journalists’ relationship with their audience changes during crises; the reviewed studies demonstrate how the civic and service roles are prioritised. When a tsunami struck the coastlines of the Indian Ocean in 2004, where thousands of Swedish tourists celebrated their Christmas holidays, Swedish journalists experienced an increased responsibility to interact with their audience, answering phone calls from worried citizens and publishing photographs of missing persons (Odén et al., 2009). A similar tendency could be observed during the Covid-19 pandemic: Journalists became more responsive to audience needs, and digital interaction between journalists and audiences increased. The audience was invited to interact through chats and contributing content, such as lockdown photographs (Olsen & Furseth, 2023). These practices align with Mellado’s (2015) civic role dimension, wherein journalism seeks to amplify citizen voices, facilitate public engagement, and reflect civic concerns. At the same time, the blurring of professional and audience boundaries introduces elements of infotainment and personalisation, particularly when audience contributions emphasise emotionality or spectacle over deliberative discourse.

In addition to engaging the audience, such initiatives provided journalists with information about their interests and needs (Túñez-López et al., 2020). While responding to an apparent need for information, prioritising audience demands can also push aside other essential news criteria (Konow-Lund & Wiik, 2024) and challenge impartiality and critical scrutiny.

The rise of digital and social media has blurred traditional boundaries between journalists and audiences, and between professionals and amateurs (Andén-Papadopoulos & Pantti, 2013). This shift presents both challenges and opportunities, prompting a rethinking of journalistic professional identity, ethics, and newsgathering practices in a digital era (Konow-Lund et al., 2019; Ojala & Pöyhtäri, 2018; Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018). The reviewed studies acknowledge that social media has had a transformative impact on crisis reporting, particularly through citizen journalism and eyewitness accounts, which challenge traditional gatekeeping roles while offering new opportunities for immediacy, diverse perspectives, and audience engagement (Andén-Papadopoulos & Pantti, 2013; Nilsson, 2020). However, concerns around verification, accuracy, and misinformation persist (Konow-Lund & Olsson, 2016, 2017; Konow-Lund et al., 2019; Ojala & Pöyhtäri, 2018; Pantti & Ojala, 2019; Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018). The influence of social media complicates editorial decisions, as editors increasingly respond to public sentiment expressed online. This pressure can sometimes lead to decisions that prioritise popularity over upholding journalistic standards (Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018). This shift toward audience-driven content requires a delicate balance between maintaining editorial independence and meeting audience demands for immediacy during a crisis.

The rise of digital platforms and tools has led to significant innovation in storytelling formats, multimedia integration, and audience engagement (Andén-Papadopoulos & Pantti, 2013; Konow-Lund et al., 2019; Ojala & Pöyhtäri, 2018). However, the financial challenges facing journalism in the digital age – declining revenues and increasing competition – are forcing newsrooms to rethink business models and prioritise collaboration and innovation to sustain quality journalism (Ojala & Pöyhtäri, 2018). For example, in the aftermath of the Utøya terror attack, competing media houses set aside rivalry to collectively ensure that the public received crucial information (Ottosen & Bull, 2016).

In the introduction to a special issue of Digital Journalism, Quandt and Wahl-Jorgensen (2021) proposed that the Covid-19 pandemic marked a critical moment in journalism, initiating or accelerating the transformation of journalistic practice. Looking specifically at the Nordic context, this claim is substantiated. Several of the reviewed studies support the notion that crises such as the pandemic lead to unprecedented levels of change and transformation in journalistic practice (Appelgren, 2022; Konow-Lund et al., 2022; Olsen & Furseth, 2023; Solvoll & Olsen, 2024; Túñez-López et al., 2020). The Covid-19 pandemic accelerated digital transition and the hybridisation of online and offline production (Appelgren, 2022; Konow-Lund & Wiik, 2024; Túñez-López et al., 2020). This was exemplified by Konow-Lund and colleagues’ (2022) study on Norwegian VG’s Covid-19 live tracker. Born out of the need for real-time information about Covid-19–infected individuals, the initiative led to organisational and methodological changes within the newsroom, merging professional roles. On the one hand, digital innovation enabled news production under extraordinary circumstances, maintaining business as usual; however, innovation was also driven by novel audience needs that arose during the crisis.

Beyond specific role dimensions, the reviewed studies identify overarching challenges and dilemmas that shape role performance, including ethical pressures, emotional strain, and resource asymmetries between newsrooms. These challenges arise in response to “frame-breaking” events that disrupt established routines (Konow-Lund & Olsson, 2016), as well as situations demanding fast and accurate information dissemination under conditions of uncertainty and chaos (Ghersetti & Johansson, 2021; Klemm et al., 2019). Journalists must navigate ethical dilemmas and practical constraints, balancing speed and accuracy (Ghersetti & Johansson, 2021), coping with the psychological impact of witnessing traumatic events (Backholm & Idås, 2015; Odén et al., 2009), and negotiating their roles relative to authority and the public (Klemm et al., 2019). The nature of the crisis itself, whether new and surprising (Type I, e.g., the 2011 Utøya attack), new but slowly developing (Type II, e.g., the Covid-19 pandemic), sudden but familiar in occurrence (Type III, e.g., the Haiti earthquake in 2010), or predictable with established routines (Type IV, e.g., the war in Syria), can, as argued by Olsson (2010), further implicate and shape these challenges.