Online Harassment and Its Implications for the Journalist–Audience Relationship
Abstract
Seth C. Lewisa* , Rodrigo Zamithb & Mark Coddingtonc a School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USAb Department of Journalism, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USAc Department of Journalism and Mass Communications, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA, USACONTACT Seth C. Lewis sclewis@uoregon.eduSupplemental data for this article can be accessed here.AbstractAmid growing threats to journalists around the world, this study examines the nature of online harassment, the types of journalists most likely to experience it, and the most common forms of response to such abuse. Through a representative survey of U.S. journalists, we find that nearly all journalists experience at least some online harassment but that such harassment is generally infrequent overall and especially in its most severe forms. Nevertheless, online harassment against journalists disproportionately affects women (particularly young women) and those who are more personally visible in the news but not necessarily those who work for larger newsrooms. Moreover, it is clear that the more often a journalist is harassed online, the more likely they are to take a dim view of the audience by seeing them as irrational and unlike themselves, and to perceive interaction with them as less valuable. Additionally, as greater targets of the worst forms of abuse, women face a greater burden in deciding if and how to respond to online harassment. Conceptually, this artic…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Prior research has largely focused on defining the nature of harassment, who is most at risk, how harassment affects journalists' work, and coping strategies.
“To date these concerns have largely focused on defining the nature of the harassment (Miller, 2023), who is most at risk (Adams, 2018; Jane, 2018; Miller & Lewis, 2022; Tandoc et al., 2023), how harassment affects the way journalists work (Lewis et al., 2020) and the coping strategies used by to mitigate threats and the deleterious consequences of this (Harlow et al., 2023).”
From An examination of psychological distress and moral injury in journalists exposed to online harassment (2025) · cites this paper as Lewis et al., 2020
A large segment of the journalism literature reveals the vulnerability of women, and particularly young women, to harassment.
“A large segment of the journalism literature reveals the vulnerability of women (Adams, 2018; Claesson, 2022; Jane, 2018; Lee & Park, 2024; Sampaio-Dias et al., 2023; Tandoc et al., 2023), and particularly young women (Lewis et al., 2020), to harassment.”
From An examination of psychological distress and moral injury in journalists exposed to online harassment (2025) · cites this paper as Lewis et al., 2020
The Online Harassment scale model found is in line with the proposal of the original authors.
“Relatively to the Online Harassment scale model found, it is in line with the proposal of the original authors [52].”
From Dark Personality Traits and Online Behaviors: Portuguese Versions of Cyberstalking, Online Harassment, Flaming and Trolling Scales (2023) · cites this paper as [52]
Cites
Domingo, D., Quandt, T., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Singer, J. B., & Vujnovic, M. (2008) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512780802281065 · Cited by 705 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lee, N. Y., & Park, A. (2024) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/14648849231166511 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Leite, Â., Cardoso, S., & Monteiro, A. P. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20126136 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“2.65 1.20 −0.03 −1.13 Online Harassment Scale Items (1–7) 1.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialExpressions of Doubt in Online News Discussions
Evans, A. M., Stavrova, O., Rosenbusch, H., & Brandt, M. J. (2023) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/08944393211034163 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Feinstein, A., Storm, H., Mead, J., & Sharkey, A. (2025) · European Journal of Psychotraumatology · doi:10.1080/20008066.2025.2522501 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“…(Miller, 2023), who is most at risk (Adams, 2018; Jane, 2018; Miller & Lewis, 2022; Tandoc et al., 2023), how harassment affects the way journalists work (Lewis et al., 2020) and the coping strategies used by to mitigate threats and the deleterious consequences of this (Harlow et al., 2023).”
- Authors
- Lewis, S. C., Zamith, R., & Coddington, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Oregon (US)
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- Washington and Lee University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lewis, Seth C.
- Venue
- Digital Journalism
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-09-11
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1047-1067
- ISSN
- 2167-0811 (ISSN-L)
- 2167-082X
- OpenAlex
- W3085817595
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 38.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Digital Journalism (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
- Keywords
- online harassment, journalists, journalist-audience relationship, audience perception, gender differences, women journalists, young women, threats against journalists, audience interaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review