The Problem of Pain: How Journalism Turns to Altruism to Manage Suffering

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

The essay opens up the important topic of emotional work in journalism and offers an interesting attempt to interpret that work through two theoretical frameworks: Parks' idea of ​​joy as a professional value and Thích Nhất Hạn's six paramitas. The introduction clearly signals that this is a conceptual essay, which is commendable and frees the text from the need for a classical empirical structure. However, although the form of the essay is allowed to be flexible, coherence and clear guidance of the reader through thought is still expected - which this text eludes in several places.

In particular, the examples cited, such as the one about the journalist Olena Kozubovska (pages 9 and 10), remain completely isolated: the quotes are detailed, but without any analytical elaboration or even reflection on what they specifically illustrate and why they are relevant to the proposed theoretical framework. Kozubovska says that she continued to work despite the trauma because she wants to help others — but the author(s) stop there, without trying to connect that situation with the notion of altruism in the sense of Parks' "joy as a news value" or with Nhất Hạnh's notion of generosity (dana paramita). The readers are left to make that connection themselves. A similar thing happens with the example of a journalist who finds the family of a young man who died (page 8): the author(s) point out that the journalist was proud of his professional instinct, but they do not go into what this means for the topic of pain, altruism and journalistic ethics. It remains just a story.

The argument "altruism works cyclically" is too often repeated  — that giving joy to others helps journalists to bear their own suffering more easily. It is an interesting idea, but it is communicated in the text several times in the same way, without deepening or concretizing. For example, the sentence from page 2: "altruism works in a two-fold manner" appears in almost the same words in the Conclusion, in the discussion, and in the theoretical part. Instead of showing how this actually takes place – through mechanisms of emotional exchange, professional practices, editorial culture or even audiences – it remains only at the level of assertion.

The theoretical framework is ambitious, but also too extensive. Parks' concept is interesting and strong enough to carry an essay on its own. The addition of Nhất Hạn and his six paramitas introduces another layer, but without a clear role. For example, the author(s) detail each of the six paramitas (pages 7 and 8), but later focus almost exclusively on dana paramita (generosity), while not mentioning the others. The question is then why are they all included, if they are not used as a tool in the analysis? Instead of applying them concretely to the practice of journalists (eg. to show how "kshanti" - accepting the pain of others - works in everyday work), they remain as a conceptual background without practical use.

Stylistically, the text occasionally slips into sentimentality. Expressions like "opening one's heart" or "suffering serves as a teacher" blur the line between reflection and affirmation, or between essay and sermon. The essay is an easy read, but in its current form it relies too much on emotional tone and too little on intellectual tension.

Despite everything, the topic is significant and the author(s) raise important questions about how journalists deal with the emotional consequences of their work and whether meaning can be found in that process. The essay could become a relevant contribution to the literature on journalism and emotions, but for this it is necessary to narrow and refine the theoretical framework, to elaborate on the examples and to replace rhetorical claims with analytical elaboration.

I look forward to reading the improved version.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is generally good, but it needs to be proofread and brought back to professional expression in order to improve clarity and stylistic consistency. I would pay particular attention to softening the emotional tone and reducing repetitive expressions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the resubmitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

N/A

 

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions to Authors

Comment 1:  In particular, the examples cited, such as the one about the journalist Olena Kozubovska (pages 9 and 10), remain completely isolated: the quotes are detailed, but without any analytical elaboration or even reflection on what they specifically illustrate and why they are relevant to the proposed theoretical framework. Kozubovska says that she continued to work despite the trauma because she wants to help others — but the author(s) stop there, without trying to connect that situation with the notion of altruism in the sense of Parks' "joy as a news value" or with Nhất Hạnh's notion of generosity (dana paramita). The readers are left to make that connection themselves. A similar thing happens with the example of a journalist who finds the family of a young man who died (page 8): the author(s) point out that the journalist was proud of his professional instinct, but they do not go into what this means for the topic of pain, altruism and journalistic ethics. It remains just a story.

Response 1: Thank you for this point. These case studies were, as you indicated, employed to help illustrate the connective tissue between these frameworks and bolster our argument. We see now that we didn’t “close the loop” in these connections. In the revised version, we believe you’ll find this much improved for each of the cases.

Comment 2: The argument "altruism works cyclically" is too often repeated  — that giving joy to others helps journalists to bear their own suffering more easily. It is an interesting idea, but it is communicated in the text several times in the same way, without deepening or concretizing. For example, the sentence from page 2: "altruism works in a two-fold manner" appears in almost the same words in the Conclusion, in the discussion, and in the theoretical part. Instead of showing how this actually takes place – through mechanisms of emotional exchange, professional practices, editorial culture or even audiences – it remains only at the level of assertion.

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. You’ll see we removed several mentions of our overall argument to circumscribe attention to the places where we offer this thesis statement. Furthermore, the revised discussion of each of our cases we believe also helps move our argument from assertion to demonstration.  

Comment 3: The theoretical framework is ambitious, but also too extensive. Parks' concept is interesting and strong enough to carry an essay on its own. The addition of Nhất Hạn and his six paramitas introduces another layer, but without a clear role. For example, the author(s) detail each of the six paramitas (pages 7 and 8), but later focus almost exclusively on dana paramita (generosity), while not mentioning the others. The question is then why are they all included, if they are not used as a tool in the analysis? Instead of applying them concretely to the practice of journalists (eg. to show how "kshanti" - accepting the pain of others - works in everyday work), they remain as a conceptual background without practical use.

Response 3: We feel strongly that Nhất Hạhn has something to teach our field and indeed, bringing his work into this piece is one of its key contributions. That said, we didn’t initially solidify that well. In the revised manuscript, you’ll see we implemented discussion of Nhất Hạhn into several other places and offered more discussion of the other paramitas. Dana paramita of course remains dominant, given that it is key to our conceptual argument.

Comment 4: Stylistically, the text occasionally slips into sentimentality. Expressions like "opening one's heart" or "suffering serves as a teacher" blur the line between reflection and affirmation, or between essay and sermon. The essay is an easy read, but in its current form it relies too much on emotional tone and too little on intellectual tension.

Response 4: Fair point, but you’ll see that this sentimentality emerges from our theoretical constructs. We’ve double checked some of this language however and ensured that it is rooted in the thoughts of the noted theorists.

Comment 5: Despite everything, the topic is significant and the author(s) raise important questions about how journalists deal with the emotional consequences of their work and whether meaning can be found in that process. The essay could become a relevant contribution to the literature on journalism and emotions, but for this it is necessary to narrow and refine the theoretical framework, to elaborate on the examples and to replace rhetorical claims with analytical elaboration.

Response 5: Thank you! We believe you’ll find the revised manuscript to be much stronger.  

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this paper offers a conceptual synthesis on how altruism serves as a mechanism for journalists to manage their everyday stress. However, in its current form it is more an extended literature review and theoretical essay, without any empirical research. There is no section of methodology (!). 

I recommend the authors:

• Include a Methodology section and formulate clear research questions/variables/ or hypotheses; Specify research procedures, design, data-collection process, etc.  Explain sampling: who was studied, how participants or data sources were selected, and the sample size;
• Conduct the empirical study (for now there is only theoretical framework and interpretation of the one respondent).
• If the paper is solely conceptual, revise the manuscript’s scope and clearly label it as a “conceptual essay” or just “review” which will include the desk research authors presented.  

Without these adjustments, the paper is a very well‐crafted academic blog or essay rather than an original research article.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the resubmitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

The content could be more succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research on the topic.

The arguments and discussion of findings must be more coherent, balanced, and compelling.

The conclusion could be more thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or references in secondary literature.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions to Authors

Comment 1:  Overall, this paper offers a conceptual synthesis on how altruism serves as a mechanism for journalists to manage their everyday stress. However, in its current form it is more an extended literature review and theoretical essay, without any empirical research. There is no section of methodology (!). 

Response 1: This article is intended as a conceptual research piece exploring how joy functions as a coping mechanism for managing pain and stress in the journalistic field. In response to your comment, we have revised the introduction to more clearly communicate the article’s conceptual focus and clarify that it does not include an empirical methodology section by design.

Comment 2: Include a Methodology section and formulate clear research questions/variables/ or hypotheses; Specify research procedures, design, data-collection process, etc. Explain sampling: who was studied, how participants or data sources were selected, and the sample size;

Conduct the empirical study (for now there is only theoretical framework and interpretation of the one respondent).

If the paper is solely conceptual, revise the manuscript’s scope and clearly label it as a “conceptual essay” or just “review” which will include the desk research authors presented.  Without these adjustments, the paper is a very well‐crafted academic blog or essay rather than an original research article.

Response 2: We acknowledge the concern regarding the lack of methodology, research questions, or empirical data. As this article is intended to be a conceptual essay, we have not added an empirical component but instead revised the introduction to more clearly define the manuscript's scope and theoretical orientation. The updated introduction explicitly states that this is a conceptual synthesis based on existing literature.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a wonderful manuscript, and I have no other option but to recommend its publication in its current form. It is a manuscript that is carefully written that proposes a new theoretical framework to study how journalists manage pain. Reading it is a joy, and its author or authors somehow manage to communicate the peace of the journalistic practices that they describe. I believe that this article will be enlightening for journalism scholars that are examining emotions, pain and violence in news work. I know that I will assign it to my students as soon as it gets published for them to understand not only how journalists deal with pain and engage in altruism, but also to explain how a theoretical article can be written. Congratulations to its author or authors. It has been a long time since I last reviewed an article of this caliber.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We appreciate your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. As there were no suggestions for revision, we have not made changes to the manuscript in response to this comment.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions to Authors

Comment 1:  This is a wonderful manuscript, and I have no other option but to recommend its publication in its current form. It is a manuscript that is carefully written that proposes a new theoretical framework to study how journalists manage pain. Reading it is a joy, and its author or authors somehow manage to communicate the peace of the journalistic practices that they describe. I believe that this article will be enlightening for journalism scholars that are examining emotions, pain and violence in news work. I know that I will assign it to my students as soon as it gets published for them to understand not only how journalists deal with pain and engage in altruism, but also to explain how a theoretical article can be written. Congratulations to its author or authors. It has been a long time since I last reviewed an article of this caliber.

Response 1: Thank you for your incredibly kind feedback. It truly means a lot to know that the piece resonated with you. We are especially touched that you found it both joyful to read and potentially useful for your students—that’s one of the best compliments we could hope for. We are grateful you took the time to engage with our manuscript so thoughtfully.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors’ interest in how journalists manage the emotionality of those particularly dark news events they must cover. Journalists—like first responders, social workers, therapists, healthcare workers—face the need to build emotional walls to keep from taking on the highly charged emotions of such news events. I recall my time as a news reporter covering natural disasters and crime. I employed professional detachment to wall off the emotionality. It worked most of the time. But on occasion, particularly negative emotions attached themselves to me and came home with me.

I especially like the authors’ use of Thích Nhẩt Hạnh’s paramitas. I support work to cross-pollinate journalism and media studies with such material. To do so brings a refreshingly new perspective on topics that the literature has put into a reiterative box.

To the authors, I kindly offer these suggestions:

1.) The authors may find it useful to acknowledge that certain other professions face the same or similar coping issues as journalists. For example, I searched Google Scholar for “how do first responders cope with …”, and I found these recent review articles:

Díaz-Tamayo, A. M. et al. (2022). Coping strategies for exposure to trauma situations in first responders: a systematic review. Prehospital and disaster medicine, 37(6), 810-818. doi:10.1017/S1049023X22001479.

Dautovich, N. D. et al. (2023). Duty-related stressors, adjustment, and the role of coping processes in first responders: A systematic review. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 15(Suppl 2), S286–S296. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001258

2.) I tweaked the keyword phrase for journalists and found these articles. Perhaps they may be of interest to the authors.

Himmelstein, H., & Faithorn, E. P. (2002). Eyewitness to Disaster: how journalists cope with the psychological stress inherent in reporting traumatic events. Journalism Studies, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670022000019173

Obermaier, M. et al. (2023). Reporting Trauma: Conflict Journalists’ Exposure to Potentially Traumatizing Events, Short- and Long-Term Consequences, and Coping Behavior. Journalism Studies, 24(11). https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2216808

3.) To the section, “2. The problem of pain,” the authors may wish to consider citing literature more recent than Schmidt et al., 2013).

For example, there’s a rich body of literature on journalists’ burnout and turnover intentions due to ever-increasing work demands. Also, in my time as a news reporter, audience members were critical … but not threatening. Not so today. Here’s a recent study: Peña-Fernández, S., et al. (2025). Shooting the messenger? Harassment and hate speech directed at journalists on social media. Societies, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15050130

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. In response to your comments, we have updated and expanded the references to include more recent and relevant literature. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the resubmitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

The article could be more adequately referenced.

Response: We have strengthened the manuscript’s references by incorporating recent and relevant literature, including Peña-Fernández et al. (2025) on online harassment, Díaz-Tamayo et al. (2022) on coping strategies among first responders, and both Himmelstein & Faithorn (2002) and Obermaier et al. (2023) on journalists’ exposure to trauma and emotional stress.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions to Authors

Comment 1:  I appreciate the authors’ interest in how journalists manage the emotionality of those particularly dark news events they must cover. Journalists—like first responders, social workers, therapists, and healthcare workers—face the need to build emotional walls to keep from taking on the highly charged emotions of such news events. I recall my time as a news reporter covering natural disasters and crime. I employed professional detachment to wall off the emotionality. It worked most of the time. But on occasion, particularly negative emotions attached themselves to me and came home with me.

I especially like the authors’ use of Thích Nhẩt Hạnh’s paramitas. I support work to cross-pollinate journalism and media studies with such material. To do so brings a refreshingly new perspective on topics that the literature has put into a reiterative box.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful review. We’re grateful for your reflections on the emotional demands of journalism and are glad the use of Thích Nhất Hạnh’s paramitas resonated with you.

Comment 2: The authors may find it useful to acknowledge that certain other professions face the same or similar coping issues as journalists. For example, I searched Google Scholar for “how do first responders cope with …”, and I found these recent review articles:

Díaz-Tamayo, A. M. et al. (2022). Coping strategies for exposure to trauma situations in first responders: a systematic review. Prehospital and disaster medicine, 37(6), 810-818. doi:10.1017/S1049023X22001479.

Dautovich, N. D. et al. (2023). Duty-related stressors, adjustment, and the role of coping processes in first responders: A systematic review. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 15(Suppl 2), S286–S296. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001258

Response 2: In response, we have revised the section titled 2.0 Theoretical Concern: The Problem of Pain to acknowledge that other professions—such as emergency responders—also face emotional strain and adopt coping strategies to manage the stress inherent in their roles. We have incorporated this comparison carefully, ensuring it does not overstate similarities, and have cited Díaz-Tamayo et al. (2022) as suggested.

Comment 3: I tweaked the keyword phrase for journalists and found these articles. Perhaps they may be of interest to the authors.

Himmelstein, H., & Faithorn, E. P. (2002). Eyewitness to Disaster: how journalists cope with the psychological stress inherent in reporting traumatic events. Journalism Studies, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670022000019173

Obermaier, M. et al. (2023). Reporting Trauma: Conflict Journalists’ Exposure to Potentially Traumatizing Events, Short- and Long-Term Consequences, and Coping Behavior. Journalism Studies, 24(11). https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2216808

Response 3: In response, we have incorporated both Himmelstein & Faithorn (2002) and Obermaier et al. (2023) into the revised section under 2.0 Theoretical Concern: The Problem of Pain. We used these references to reinforce the idea that, much like first responders, journalists frequently operate in distressing or dangerous conditions where they must confront their vulnerability and manage pain.

Comment 4:  To the section, “2. The problem of pain,” the authors may wish to consider citing literature more recent than Schmidt et al., 2013).

For example, there’s a rich body of literature on journalists’ burnout and turnover intentions due to ever-increasing work demands. Also, in my time as a news reporter, audience members were critical … but not threatening. Not so today. Here’s a recent study: Peña-Fernández, S., et al. (2025). Shooting the messenger? Harassment and hate speech directed at journalists on social media. Societies, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15050130

Response 4: We incorporated the study by Peña-Fernández et al. (2025) to update and expand on Schmidt et al. (2013) by acknowledging the role of digital spaces in harassment from sources, particularly on social media.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s)

Thank you for the revised version of the paper. The second version now shows an effort to improve the text compared to the previous version. The theoretical framework is now more clearly structured, and the introductory part introduces a reference to the conceptual nature of the work, which was not explicitly indicated previously.

The examples that already existed in the first version, such as Olena Kozubovska's reporting and the case from Gretchen Dworznik's study, are now supplemented with an attempt to interpret them in the light of the theoretical framework (paramites and the concept of joy as a journalistic value). This basically answered one of the main comments from the first review: the need for analytical elaboration of examples in relation to the set theoretical assumptions.

However, the above analysis remains limited to a few illustrations and is not systematically carried out throughout the text. Most of the dimensions of the theoretical framework (especially in the part about the six parameters) remain unapplied. Argumentation often relies on repeating claims (e.g. "altruism works in a two-fold manner") without breaking down the mechanisms and without analytical depth. Also, there are still reflective and essayistic elements that weaken the academic precision of the paper.

If the paper is positioned as a conceptual article, it must be clearly indicated in the abstract and introduction, and then carried out through a consistent theoretical application. Otherwise, it remains unclear whether the manuscript is intended as a theoretical synthesis, a normative essay, or an illustrative analysis.

The paper shows progress compared to the previous version, but significant revisions are still needed in order to convincingly apply the theoretical framework and strengthen the argumentation.

Author Response

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the resubmitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

The arguments and discussion of findings could be more coherent, balanced, and compelling.

The conclusion must be more thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or references in secondary literature.

We have made the arguments clearer and more balanced, and we improved the conclusion by connecting it more directly to our findings and the existing literature.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions to Authors

Comment 1: The examples that already existed in the first version, such as Olena Kozubovska's reporting and the case from Gretchen Dworznik's study, are now supplemented with an attempt to interpret them in the light of the theoretical framework (paramites and the concept of joy as a journalistic value). This basically answered one of the main comments from the first review: the need for analytical elaboration of examples in relation to the set theoretical assumptions.

However, the above analysis remains limited to a few illustrations and is not systematically carried out throughout the text. Most of the dimensions of the theoretical framework (especially in the part about the six parameters) remain unapplied. Argumentation often relies on repeating claims (e.g. "altruism works in a two-fold manner") without breaking down the mechanisms and without analytical depth. Also, there are still reflective and essayistic elements that weaken the academic precision of the paper.

Response 1: In response, we more thoroughly applying all six paramitas across journalists’ coping practices. We clarified how altruism functions through both outward support of others and inward processes that foster personal resilience, and also strengthened the argument by replacing reflective language with explanations that tie our examples directly to the theoretical frameworks.

Comment 2: Most of the dimensions of the theoretical framework (especially in the part about the six parameters) remain unapplied. Argumentation often relies on repeating claims (e.g. "altruism works in a two-fold manner") without breaking down the mechanisms and without analytical depth. Also, there are still reflective and essayistic elements that weaken the academic precision of the paper.

Response 2: In response, we have clarified in the abstract that this is a conceptual article and ensured this positioning is reflected throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Have no further comments. 

Author Response

Thank you!

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for the significant changes and extra effort put into the third version of your manuscript. I can positively evaluate the fact that you clearly indicated the conceptual character of the paper, systematically presented all six paramitas, and brought the style of the text closer to the academic expression.

However, despite these improvements, the manuscript still does not meet the standards for publication in this journal. The theoretical framework is formally included, but its application to specific journalistic examples remains limited and predominantly illustrative. The connection between theoretical concepts and concrete journalistic practices is not convincingly developed (there is no analytical linking of individual paramitas to specific, elaborated examples). Also, the conclusion does not provide a clearly articulated reflection on the scope of the work, but remains reflective and non-committal in tone.

In its current form, the paper gives the impression of a thought experiment with philosophical ambitions, but without sufficient analytical depth and structural uniformity to make it suitable for publication as a scholarly article.

For the above reasons, I cannot recommend acceptance of the work.