From rubbles to screens: A comprehensive comparison between foreign correspondents and citizen journalists reporting in conflict countries

The fourth estate in the context of this research refers to the media; “the guardian of truth,” “the watchdog of power” (Shaya, 2012). Edmund Burke said, “there were three estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth estate more important far than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact” (Nielsen & Kuhn, 2014, p. 1). The civility of not only the public but also the governing body is secured when the press has the freedom to nudge all concerning issues towards a discourse in the public sphere. As reinforced by Hirst (2013), “This separation between the people and the state becomes more important when the economic interests of the powerful so frequently dominate society.”
Foreign correspondents (FCs) have the ability to make a significant impact on a conflict-ridden country when the fourth estate holding the government responsible is threatened. However, with limited access to these conflict countries, FCs depend on citizens as sources of vital information. This study investigates the individual experiences of FCs and citizen journalists (CJs) reporting in Malaysia, Myanmar, the United States, and Australia. CJs are not regarded on a similar level as their professional counterparts; consequently, discrepancies in journalism support, legal protection, and psychological support are often left unexplored. This research probes the ambiguity of conflict zones to provide structure and clarity within the realm of journalism.
In Phase I, a systematic literature review (SLR) was carried out to review and critique existing qualitative literature that surrounds reporting in conflict zones. After conducting a practical and methodological screening, nine themes were identified from 75 journal articles spanning the fields of journalism, psychology, gender studies, business and economics, safety and security, politics, law, foreign policies, mass communication, and migration. Phase II involves 16 semi-structured interviews with FCs and CJs from Malaysia, Myanmar, the United States, and Australia. The interview questions were curated based on five deductive themes: reporting styles, reporting preparation, effect of the pandemic, legal protection, and psychological trauma. Interview data was then coded and analysed using thematic analysis through a realist philosophy lens. Subsequently, the coded interview data was used to conduct a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to visually map interviewees’ responses and to test the equifinality of conjunctural causations using Boolean minimisation.
The initial findings denoted differences in the reporting styles of FCs and CJs, and the legal avenues and protections available to both groups. These preliminary findings contest the confines of citizen journalism and challenge the existing scope of conflict zones. This study explores concepts that are not yet rigidly defined, thus providing an opportunity to challenge the boundaries of journalism practice, and the scope of conflict zones to determine outlier groups worthy of research inclusion and attention. By probing not only the reporting styles and practices of FCs and CJs, but also the legal protection and psychological health access available to these journalists, specified trainings can then be curated to cater to the various nuanced groups.