Through Their Eyes: Journalists’ Perspectives on Framing, Bias, and Ethics in Media Coverage of Minorities

Abstract

Global data reveal ongoing inequalities faced by minorities, often reinforced by media portrayals that depict them as threats, victims, or passive individuals without agency. While media framing has been extensively studied, especially in terms of media content and representation, few studies have examined how journalists perceive and navigate the coverage of minorities. This study addresses that gap by examining how Greek journalists perceive mainstream media coverage of refugees and migrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people with mental health challenges, with particular attention to their sourcing practices and sense of ethical responsibility. Fourteen journalists participated in semi-structured interviews, and thematic analysis was applied to identify key patterns. Journalists described dominant media narratives as fragmented, stereotypical, and dehumanizing, noting the frequent use of linguistic inaccuracies, misinformation, and the absence of personal stories. At the same time, they reported opportunities within their own sourcing practices to promote more inclusive and accurate coverage. Ethical concerns were expressed on three levels—union; corporate; and personal—with calls for clearer editorial guidelines and dedicated training. Many participants emphasized the role of personal ethics as a guiding compass in navigating complex newsroom pressures.

1. Introduction

Numbers are striking. By May 2024, over 120 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide due to persecution, conflict, violence, or human rights violations (UNHCR, 2024). In the coming years, global displacement is expected to rise as climate change, poverty, wars, and conflicts persist and intensify. In 2019, 1 in every 8 people, or 970 million individuals globally, were living with a mental disorder, with anxiety and depressive disorders being the most prevalent (WHO, 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic significantly worsened this issue, causing a 26% increase in anxiety disorders and a 28% rise in major depressive disorders in just one year (WHO, 2022). Millions of LGBTQ+ individuals worldwide continue to face widespread discrimination, impacting their rights, opportunities, and daily lives. It is noteworthy that it was not until 1992 that the World Health Organization (WHO) finally removed homosexuality from its International Classification of Diseases (Drescher & Merlino, 2007). It was only in 2019 that WHO declassified being transgender as a mental and behavioral disorder, recognizing that it is not a mental health condition. Experts at WHO acknowledged that its classification had contributed to stigma and sought to promote a more inclusive and accurate understanding.

And although significant progress has been made in recent decades, the rise of far-right groups and parties in Europe, along with the election of Donald Trump in the USA as a clear victory for policies of hatred and exclusion, has introduced new challenges to public discourse on the rights of cultural, social, and sexual minorities, as well as the persistence of stigma.

As key socializing agents, the media serve as an important—and often the primary—source of information about different places; peoples; and cultures; particularly for minorities when direct contact is lacking; which is why they play a pivotal role in shaping public discourse about these groups; influencing both their portrayal and how audiences perceive and respond to these representations. These depictions are widely believed to contribute to the construction and reinforcement of stereotypes, prejudice (Mastro, 2009), and stigma (Maiorano et al., 2017).

Stigma is an overarching term including problems of knowledge (ignorance or misinformation), attitudes (prejudice), and behavior (discrimination) that affects the daily life of people who experience mental health challenges, LGBTQ+ persons, and refugees and migrants in many respects, for example, in terms of social isolation, exclusion from employment, poorer physical health care, or self-esteem. Overall, stigma is one of the main barriers to social inclusion for minorities, and when the news media frame a group negatively, they unintentionally perpetuate prejudice and discrimination, thereby becoming social structures that reinforce stigma (Maiorano et al., 2017).

The existing literature offers extensive insights into how minorities are portrayed in the media, with framing theory (Entman, 1993) providing a useful lens for analyzing these depictions. According to this framework, the media construct meaning by selecting and emphasizing certain aspects of reality, defining problems, diagnosing causes, making moral judgments, and proposing solutions. Two dominant frames frequently shape the coverage of minorities: the threat frame, which presents them as dangers to public safety, order, or culture, and the victim frame, which portrays them as helpless individuals deserving compassion and support (Kim et al., 2011; Thorbjornsrud, 2015). These narratives have been shown to reinforce stereotypes and shape public perceptions and attitudes, particularly in media portrayals of refugees and migrants (Van Gorp, 2005; Greussing & Boomgaarden, 2017), LGBTQ+ individuals (Moscowitz, 2020), and people with mental health challenges (Maiorano et al., 2017; Parrott, 2020). While most research has focused on media content and its effects on audiences, fewer studies have examined how journalists themselves perceive and construct these frames (Calderón et al., 2021). This study addresses that gap by focusing on the perspectives of journalists reporting on minorities and how their views shape sourcing practices and ethical decision-making in news production.

This study addresses this gap by examining the perceptions of Greek journalists regarding mainstream media coverage of minorities, with a focus on refugees and migrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people facing mental health challenges, while also exploring their sourcing practices and understanding of ethical responsibility (Calderón et al., 2021; Voakes, 1997).

The selection of these three groups—LGBTQ+ individuals; refugees and migrants; and people with mental health disorders—is based on their shared history of experiencing multiple traumatic events throughout their lives. These events often include verbal, emotional, and physical abuse, as well as discrimination in areas such as housing and employment. In many cases, these forms of diversity intersect, creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage. For instance, while a refugee may face significant marginalization, an LGBTQ+ refugee is even more vulnerable to multiple layers of discrimination.

The Greek media system is marked by structural challenges, including concentrated ownership and a difficult economic environment, particularly after the 2008–2012 financial crisis. These challenges have resulted in significant job losses and the closure of major outlets (Papathanassopoulos, 2020).

At the same time, Greece has faced significant challenges related to minorities. As a crossroads to Europe, it has been a primary gateway for refugees and migrants over the past few decades (Kalfeli et al., 2022). Only recently (in 2024) have same-sex couples gained the right to marry and adopt children, while mental health issues remain largely neglected in the country. By examining Greece’s experience as a microcosm for understanding media coverage of minorities, this research contributes to the international literature on journalists’ perceptions of minority representation in the media.

To address this gap, this study seeks to answer the following key questions:

• How do Greek journalists perceive the dominant narratives in mainstream media coverage of minorities?
• What sourcing practices do they follow when reporting on minority communities?
• How do they understand their ethical responsibilities, and what role do ethical codes play in shaping their work? What strategies do they propose for improving the quality and fairness of minority representation?

In particular, this paper aims to first, explore the media ecosystem in which Greek journalists operate, with a focus on working conditions, routines, and constraints; second, examine journalists’ perceptions of dominant coverage of minorities, particularly about refugees and migrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and those facing mental health challenges; third, analyze how journalists approach and utilize sources in their reporting; and fourth, address issues of ethics and responsibility, proposing strategies to improve the quality and fairness of minority representation in the news. To meet these objectives, 14 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of Greek journalists, and thematic analysis was used to identify common themes, patterns, and key ideas.

In the following sections, this paper first reviews the most representative research on media coverage of minorities. It then outlines the methodology of the study, followed by a detailed discussion of the findings, with a focus on journalists’ perceptions of dominant media narratives, sourcing practices, and understanding of ethical responsibility when reporting on minorities.

2. Literature Review

For many people around the world, especially those with limited direct contact with minority groups, the media serve as the primary window into the lives and experiences of minorities (Youngblood, 2017). As a result, public understanding of minority groups is largely shaped by media representations and news coverage (Youngblood, 2017). This raises an important question: Does the media present minority issues in a comprehensive and consistent way?

Building on the threat and victim frames outlined in the introduction, scholars have emphasized that minorities are not only stereotyped but often underrepresented or misrepresented in ways that dehumanize and marginalize them. Media coverage frequently focuses on extreme or episodic events while overlooking personal stories and everyday experiences that would offer more complex, human-centered portrayals. This tendency contributes to the invisibility of minority voices, reinforcing harmful perceptions and limiting societal understanding. These patterns apply across multiple groups, including refugees and migrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people experiencing mental health challenges (Billings & Parrott, 2020).

However, it is equally important to acknowledge that media can also function as a powerful ally in challenging public prejudices, sparking informed debate, and promoting positive, human-centered narratives about stigmatized minorities (Maiorano et al., 2017). A peace journalism approach, for instance, advocates for more balanced and inclusive reporting (Galtung, 2006). This model encourages journalists to move beyond episodic, event-driven coverage and instead highlight underrepresented dimensions of minority experiences, such as human-interest stories, the voices of non-elite sources, and human rights-based solutions (Youngblood, 2017). By broadening the news agenda and incorporating minority perspectives, peace journalism helps contextualize complex issues, uncover structural causes of marginalization, and illuminate long-term consequences and pathways to resolution (Kalfeli et al., 2024).

Although the framing of minorities in the media has been extensively examined in academic research, primarily through content analysis, the perspectives of journalists themselves, especially those who report regularly on minority issues, remain relatively less studied (Calderón et al., 2021). Nevertheless, a growing body of scholarship has started to explore journalists’ own views on diversity, inclusion, and professional practices in covering minorities (e.g., Beazer et al., 2025; Douglas, 2021; Vandenberghe et al., 2017). These studies provide valuable insights into how journalists negotiate ethical standards, professional norms, and organizational pressures when covering minority groups. Gaining a deeper understanding of how journalists perceive and approach minority coverage remains crucial in today’s rapidly evolving media environment, marked by disinformation, accelerated news cycles, hate speech, and the rise of AI technologies. In this context, examining journalists’ production processes complements content-based analyses and helps identify pathways for more accurate, inclusive, and constructive coverage (Calderón et al., 2021).

This study aims to bridge this gap by examining how journalists perceive and critique dominant media narratives about minorities and what practices they adopt differently, particularly in relation to sourcing, as a critical component of reporting. It contributes to broader discussions on ethics, professional responsibility, and strategies for more equitable and inclusive media coverage.

3. Method

This study draws on 14 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with journalists from various media outlets in Greece, including online platforms, television, and newspapers. Participants were selected through purposive sampling from a broader pool of journalists, with the aim of ensuring diversity in gender, experience level, media roles, and familiarity with reporting on minority issues. The final sample comprised 14 journalists—8 men and 6 women—ranging in age from their 20s to their 50s. They represented both early-career and experienced professionals and held roles such as editors, reporters, investigative journalists, and content creators. This approach allowed for a range of perspectives across digital, print, and broadcast journalism while maintaining a focused qualitative scope appropriate for thematic analysis.

To ensure anonymity, all participants are referred to using the code “PJ” (Participating Journalist), followed by a serial number corresponding to the order in which the interviews were conducted (see Appendix A). All interviews followed a semi-structured format, which provides the flexibility needed to explore the participants’ perspectives. The interviews were guided by a custom-designed interview guide developed specifically for this project (see Appendix B).

The interview guide was structured around five axes, grounded in previous scholarly research (Calderón et al., 2021) to ensure that the questions were firmly anchored in established theoretical frameworks while addressing key aspects relevant to the research topic. The first axis explores the journalist’s profile and professional career, including their educational background, career trajectory, areas of expertise, and engagement with minority issues. The second axis examines participants’ perceptions of their working conditions and the evolving media landscape in Greece, focusing on daily work practices, challenges such as time constraints, resource limitations, and technological advancements, as well as significant changes within the profession over recent years. The third axis investigates journalists’ perceptions of mainstream minority coverage, analyzing how they view the media portrayal of minorities, identifying dominant narratives, framing techniques, and characteristics of both negative and positive depictions. The fourth axis focuses on the role of sources as a key component of media coverage, examining how journalists select and use them, and exploring the challenges involved in incorporating the voices of minority groups into their reporting. Finally, the fifth axis addresses journalists’ understanding of ethics and responsibility, the role of ethical codes in guiding their work, and potential strategies for improving the quality and fairness of minority coverage through training and institutional reforms.

All interviews were conducted in Greek (the participants’ native language) via Zoom videoconferences between May and September 2024, with each session lasting approximately 30 to 40 min. Zoom facilitated the inclusion of a wide range of participants from different geographical locations, ensuring the study was not constrained by physical boundaries. Prior to the interviews, each participant completed a letter of invitation and an informed consent form. Both the consent form and the interview guide were approved by the University’s Research Ethics Committee (Protocol Number: 145805/2024). After the interviews, transcription was completed in two stages: First, through the automated tool turboscribe.ai, and second, by manual verification and completion of the transcription to ensure accuracy.

Once the interviews were conducted and transcribed, the data were processed using thematic analysis, a key qualitative method. The analysis was primarily guided by the theoretical framework proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). According to them, thematic analysis involves “identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within the data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79), with the aim of producing a meaningful analysis that addresses specific research questions.

The analysis followed the six-step process proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006), which unfolded as follows: In phase 1, the entire dataset was carefully reviewed to ensure the researchers became thoroughly familiar with the content. Phase 2 involved a detailed examination of participants’ responses to identify initial codes, leading to the creation of a coding scheme. In phase 3, these codes were organized into meaningful categories, forming the foundation for thematic themes. In phase 4, a thematic map was created [using Canvas] to guide the subsequent analysis. In phase 5, the themes were refined, and in phase 6, the most relevant and illustrative excerpts from the interviews were selected. Each quotation was assigned to the theme it best represented, and the final analysis report was compiled.

Throughout the process, coding decisions were discussed within the research team to reflect upon and refine theme development. This ongoing dialogue aimed to enhance the trustworthiness and consistency of the analysis, following procedures similar to those described in Papadopoulou and Maniou (2024).

The primary objective of the analysis was to uncover common themes and patterns regarding the participants’ views on three central areas: (a) The portrayal of minorities in the media, with a focus on perceived dominant narratives and framing techniques; (b) the selection and use of sources in reporting, including the challenges of incorporating and representing minority voices; and (c) the role of ethical frameworks in shaping journalistic practices, as well as potential avenues for improving minority coverage through professional training and institutional changes. The following section presents the themes that emerged from the analysis.

4. Findings

Thematic analysis of the 14 in-depth interviews with Greek journalists revealed several key findings and central themes. All participants had prior reporting experience on minority-related issues, with a particular focus on stories concerning refugees and migrants. In contrast, as highlighted by key findings, issues related to LGBTQ+ communities and mental health have received less media attention in the past and were primarily brought onto the media agenda in response to public discourse surrounding specific legislative developments. Overall, journalists described a media landscape under pressure, shaped by structural shifts in the Greek media sector, including media outlet closures, technological advancements, strong political affiliations and influence, time and financial constraints, as well as concerns related to journalist safety. The dominant coverage of minorities was largely perceived as negative, fragmented, and stereotypical, often lacking human-centered narratives and the voices of minority groups, while being marked by misinformation and linguistic inaccuracies. These shortcomings were attributed to factors such as the political orientation of media outlets, external political pressure, time constraints, and the lack of specialized journalists and on-the-ground reporting. Despite these challenges, participants identified opportunities within their own sourcing methods to promote more inclusive reporting. Practices such as consulting multiple sources, including necessarily minority voices, building trust with interviewees, and verifying information with care were highlighted as steps toward more inclusive and in-depth journalism. Regarding ethics, journalists emphasized the need for clear guidelines and training from both unions and media organizations while also emphasizing the importance of personal ethics as a guiding compass in navigating complex and high-pressure newsroom environments.

4.1. Between Deadlines and Dilemmas: Journalists’ Backgrounds and Perspectives on Current Media Landscape in Greece

The majority of the participating journalists in this study hold university degrees in Journalism or Mass Communications, with several also having postgraduate qualifications. Participant journalists represent a wide range of professional backgrounds, working in different media outlets and fulfilling diverse roles within the field of journalism, including newsroom reporting, flow journalism, breaking news, and investigative reporting. Their diverse perspectives offer valuable insights into various aspects of journalism. In terms of their reporting experience, all of them have covered minority issues, with a particular focus on stories related to refugees and migrants. This reflects broader socio-political developments in Greece, since the country has served as a key gateway to Europe and a focal point during the European refugee “crisis”, leading many journalists to develop expertise in this area. They have also reported—though to a much lesser extent—on the LGBTQ+ community; particularly during the public debate surrounding same-sex marriage legislation in 2024. Coverage of mental health issues was even more limited and, as journalists noted, has been typically framed through the lens of general well-being reporting. A few participants also mentioned having covered other marginalized groups, such as Muslims and members of the Roma community in Greece.

As illustrated in Figure 1, when reflecting on the transformations in the Greek media landscape over the past decade, journalists highlighted a series of interconnected challenges and shifts. Key events included the temporary shutdown of ERT (the national public broadcaster) and the closure of major media groups, which led to widespread job losses and fundamentally reshaped the professional environment for journalists. As one participant noted:

PJ1: “The big picture is that after the crisis, after 2010–2012, there were momentous changes [in the Greek media]. That is, newspapers and correspondent offices shut down, TV channels were closed, ERT [public radio and television broadcaster] was closed and later reopened. […] I don’t know, maybe it’s hundreds of journalists who lost their jobs overnight. They had to quickly shift to very opportunistic jobs, change contracts. For us it was a big issue”.

In addition to structural changes, participants emphasized profound shifts in how information is produced, disseminated, and consumed. These include the explosive growth of the internet and social media, which has led to an overload of information, as well as the increased speed of news transmission. In this fast-paced, hyperconnected environment, journalists described a pressing need to prioritize and filter content for their audiences:

PJ1: “Our job today is not to broadcast the news to the public, who is bombarded with hundreds of news stories every day. It’s to prioritize them. And to tell the public… you know what? For today, there are five things you need to know, in this order”.

Time is a prevalent and multidimensional theme in the narratives of the interviewees, emerging not only as a structural parameter of journalism but also as a factor that affects its quality. The metaphors used by participants to describe the effects of time, such as “challenge”, “relentless opponent”, and “pressure”, are not coincidental and illustrate the emotional and professional burden associated with time. Some interviewees described time as a source of pressure, particularly in the context of flow journalism, where immediacy dominates. In contrast, others, especially those involved in investigative journalism, referred to the “luxury of time”, which allows for deeper inquiry and the cultivation of trust with sources. Time was also linked to content quality, the risk of errors due to speed, and the shifts between past and present journalistic practices. As PJ2 reflected, “In an era where a journalist is almost constantly connected, let’s put it that way, you’ll receive a message at any time—“Check this out”, “Do this” “Did you see that?” and so on. […] The speed has changed drastically, as has the ability to control the news. There’s a constant fear of falling behind. We no longer have the newspaper system, where you did the reporting, went back, discussed it with your editor, wrote it, rewrote it, had someone review it, and then it was printed. There was, let’s say, a larger window of time. […] Today, we’re in a constant pressure to produce, so to speak”. For others, time intersects with personal endurance and emotional fatigue, occasionally giving rise to feelings of futility. As PJ3 highlighted, “Yes, you get exhausted”.

PJ13 also addressed the prevalence of “trending” topics and the pressure to follow them: “What I mean is that the people working in the field, the ones doing the reporting, don’t have the time to research or approach the story the way they should. As a result, they follow trends to stay safe”. Towards the same direction, PJ7 added, “I need to check Google Trends. Google, whether we like it or not, is an unforgiving editor-in-chief overseeing us”.

In addition to time pressures and trends, financial resources are another key area of concern. Journalists mentioned a range of funding models—“crowdfunding”; “collaborations with other journalistic groups”; “grants”; or mixed strategies—but financial dependence on political or corporate interests is prevalent and seen as a structural threat to editorial independence. As PJ3 indicated, “But in the majority of cases, yes, the media have sponsors… I mean, they rely on people from ideological or political spaces. So, this automatically raises the question: How independent can the news be when the funding comes from specific political or ideological groups?”.

The issue of sustainability also emerged at the personal level. For some, like PJ13, financial insecurity raises existential questions about journalists’ ability to continue their work: “Of course, what I tell the younger generation is that, to do good journalism right now in Greece, you might need to do another job alongside journalism, especially online, like in La La Land”.

Security remains a critical concern in today’s media ecosystem in Greece, as journalists face various threats. As noted by PJ10: “So, look, one aspect is security. I mean, in the years I’ve worked in this field, I’ve been called upon to deal with everything […] And when I say security, I mean dealing with things like legal threats, phone tapping, suspicions of physical surveillance, and, of course, online threats—cyber-attacks on the website”.

On the other hand, several journalists pointed to the emergence of investigative journalism groups in Greece as a hopeful development. They emphasized that these initiatives are driven by journalists’ own efforts to reclaim professional integrity and produce in-depth, socially responsible reporting. As PJ1 reflected, “On a more optimistic note, in recent years, a number of independent media outlets have emerged in Greece. These are the result of collective efforts by journalists who are engaging in what we might call investigative journalism. Thanks to these independent outlets, we now have at least a basic understanding of several major issues that might otherwise have remained hidden. This kind of journalistic culture was largely absent in Greece in the past, but now it exists. It is still in its infancy, but I believe it will continue to grow and improve”.

In conclusion, based on the perspectives of the participating journalists, the landscape of journalism in Greece has undergone profound transformations over the past decade, shaped by economic challenges, shifting media structures, and the rapid evolution of digital technologies. Journalists now navigate a complex environment where time pressure, financial constraints, and the need for editorial independence often conflict. In this context, covering critical social issues such as migration and asylum, LGBTQ+, mental health, and minority rights becomes increasingly challenging. The following section presents journalists’ views and critiques of mainstream media coverage of minorities in Greece.

4.2. Through Their Eyes: Journalists’ Views and Critique on Dominant Media Coverage of Minorities in Greece

Interviewed Greek journalists shared a range of perspectives on the current state of mainstream media coverage of minority groups in Greece, highlighting several journalistic patterns that undermine accurate and fair representation (see Figure 2). These patterns include superficial and fragmented reporting, stereotyping, a lack of human-centered narratives and minority voices, the spread of misinformation and disinformation, and problematic language use. These perspectives offer a critical lens through which we can examine the underlying causes of non-inclusive media coverage and its broader consequences for public perceptions of marginalized communities.

4.2.1. Superficial and Fragmented Reporting

One of the main characteristics of perceived dominant media coverage of minorities in Greece, according to journalists, is its superficial and fragmented nature. Media interest tends to increase during crises or tragic events—such as shipwrecks or murders—but quickly fades once the situation returns to “normal”. As one journalist (PJ10) explained, “Parachute journalism was extremely prevalent. They’d go to an island because something was happening there; it was a hotspot at the time related to the refugee issue. They’d do a couple of interviews, grab a few soundbites, and that was it, done and gone”.

At the same time, as participant journalists noted, minority groups remain practically invisible in the media unless a major incident forces them into the spotlight. As PJ10 noted, “Yes, there are minorities, whose issues are not covered at all, unless something really big happens. And even then, it often carries a kind of negative publicity, if I can put it that way. I mean, we talk about LGBTQ+ people, for example, only when—I don’t know—when they’re murdered?”. Another interviewee (PJ5) expanded on this, highlighting the particularly limited media attention to certain communities: “For example, when it comes to LGBTQ+ individuals, there’s very little coverage. And you really see it with the Roma. The Roma are among the most underreported populations in the country. I mean, refugees actually receive more coverage—though there are still issues there—they’re also underreported, just not to the same extent. The Roma are truly underreported. It’s a real problem, because no one writes about Roma schools, about the lack of access to water—running water. The situation is tragic”. Such observations underline the reactive rather than proactive approach to minority representation in dominant media coverage, raising important questions about media responsibility and the criteria that determine newsworthiness.

Another persistent concern among journalists regarding how mainstream media cover minorities was the lack of follow-up reporting on minority-related issues. Initial coverage of topics such as the refugee crisis, LGBTQ+ rights, or mental health is often left incomplete, with little attention paid to long-term developments. This absence of sustained coverage prevents the public from understanding the full scope of ongoing challenges and reinforces a narrative that treats minority issues as short-lived news events rather than enduring social and political issues. PJ10 expressed concern and highlighted their own different approach, “Follow-up is really important… It’s something I personally find lacking—and something we try to do differently—and we can see that people actually appreciate it. If you report on Pylos1, you need to keep following up. Once you’ve written about it once, you have to keep writing about it”.

4.2.2. Stereotyping, Lack of Human Stories, and Minority Voice

A key concern expressed by journalists is the stereotypical portrayal of minority groups. Many noted that dominant media coverage often reduces complex issues to one-dimensional narratives, emphasizing the most extreme or sensational aspects of these communities. Refugees, migrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people facing mental health challenges are frequently portrayed either as threats, victims, or caricatures, with little attention paid to their diverse identities or personal stories. As PJ3 observed, “Yes, I think there’s a very strong narrative portraying refugees as invaders, as a threat to our national identity and to our country, as if they want to destroy us, and so on”. This narrative becomes even more oversimplified in the case of refugee women, who are often depicted exclusively as passive victims. As the same journalist pointed out, “When it comes to refugee women, I think there’s a very strong tendency to portray them solely as victims, as people who need to be saved, because their identity, being Muslim for example, is seen as inherently oppressive”. Or, as PJ9 pointed out, “There seems to be a tendency either to treat them with suspicion or with pity, reflecting, on the one hand, a fear of difference, and on the other, an uncritical acceptance by the journalist of anything the person says, simply because they carry the label of ‘refugee’ or ‘migrant.’ In other words, they are not truly treated as equal citizens”.

Participating journalists expressed concern that dominant media coverage of minority groups often fails to humanize the individuals behind the labels. As PJ9 noted, “A human story is essential, because from a journalistic point of view, the ideal is to have a central character in every story—a main protagonist—and this is just as important in stories involving these issues”. PJ10 reinforced this view, emphasizing the importance of personal narratives: “I believe that when we talk about minorities and such stories, it’s outrageous not to include the personal stories of individuals in the reporting. It’s absurd to discuss situations, issues, and contexts without hearing the voices of the people involved”.

One common practice in dominant media coverage highlighted by several journalists is the use of only first names when referring to refugees or migrants in interviews or news reports, a choice that contributes to their depersonalization, reducing them to abstract figures or statistics rather than portraying them as full individuals with complex identities. As PJ9 highlighted, “One of my first and main observations is that, in interviews or news reports, when a refugee or migrant speaks, only their first name is often used. Journalistically speaking, every source should normally be identified by their full name, yet in the majority of cases I see in various Greek newspapers, only the first name appears. This is significant, as it suggests that journalists are approaching these sources differently—treating them in a way that deviates from standard professional practice”. Such practices undermine the potential for more nuanced and empathetic storytelling. As PJ13 highlighted, “Especially in the case of refugees, what we did—and failed at as journalists—was that we didn’t introduce these people to our audience. And when we say introduce them, we mean not through the tragedy of their lives, but through their lives. Who are these people? These people are essentially you and me”.

4.2.3. Linguistic Challenges

One of the main characteristics of dominant media coverage of minorities in Greece, according to the participating journalists, is the use of non-inclusive language. This issue is particularly significant in the representation of refugees and migrants. In a moment of self-reflection, PJ1 illustrated the widespread use of such terminology in the past: “Not many years ago, in 2011, 2012, I found publications from that time, where I openly referred to them as illegal immigrants [lathrometanastes]. Even though the text had a human approach, meaning we were describing human stories, we referred to them as illegal immigrants [lathrometanastes]. I mean, we [journalists] were writing about illegal immigration long before Golden Dawn came along and called them ‘illegals’ [lathro] for example. And I think this also says something about the way the media covers or used to cover the issue”.

PJ12 stressed that, while overtly discriminatory content is largely absent in progressive media environments today, greater attention is needed to the more subtle forms of bias, such as casual sexism, racism, and the psychiatric stigmatization embedded in everyday language. which often go unnoticed, even by well-intentioned professionals: “In our own journalistic environment—and I think this applies more broadly to progressive journalism—you generally won’t come across headlines about “what the Albanians are doing” or sexist jokes targeting the LGBTQ+ community. What really requires more attention is the grey zone of casual sexism, racism, and psychiatric stigmatization, which slips through far more easily, even among people with whom we’d probably find we share the same views and sensitivities. For example, a headline like “Minister’s Delirium” is, when you think about it, a stigmatizing phrase, as it links offensive speech to mental illness. And I wouldn’t swear that something like that hasn’t slipped through in our own newsroom; you can probably find a headline like “Minister’s Delirium” if you search [our media outlet] on Google”.

4.2.4. Misinformation and Disinformation

Misinformation and disinformation, according to participating journalists, remain persistent problems in media coverage, particularly when it comes to minority groups. PJ10 emphasized the widespread nature of the issue: “Greece, Greek journalists, and Greek media face a huge problem: a lack of fact-checking. From the smallest, almost insignificant piece of news to the biggest stories, Greek journalism suffers from a lack of proper fact-checking”. This lack of rigorous verification often contributes to the spread of misleading information, which in turn affects public perceptions of minority groups. Along these lines, PJ14 illustrated how unchecked content can reinforce false narratives: “Videos circulated showing some migrants jumping over a fence, which are presented as though they depict migrants entering Greece, for example. However, if you isolate certain frames and conduct a geo-location, you’ll find that the video was not filmed in Evros [the Greek border]. That fence, for instance, is in Hungary. It’s a narrative that, in fact, sometimes spills over into political discourse, as we even see tweets from politicians supporting this claim, right? Tweets from journalists who have a very specific audience and choose to… and choose to share this narrative, the one about invaders and so on”.

4.2.5. Underlying Causes of Non-Inclusive Media Coverage

According to participating journalists, as shown in Figure 3, failure to accurately and inclusively represent minority groups in mainstream media can be attributed to a range of interconnected factors. These include the political orientation of media outlets, the influence of broader political discourse, time constraints, a shortage of specialized reporters, and limited engagement with fieldwork. Together, these factors contribute to distorted portrayals of marginalized communities, perpetuating stereotypes and limiting the depth and diversity of media coverage.

Journalists have noted that the political leanings of news organizations can significantly influence the portrayal of minority issues. Conservative or progressive outlets often frame these issues in ways that align with their ideological perspectives. As a result, the media presents minority issues through a biased lens that fails to capture the complexity of the challenges faced by these groups. At the same time, journalists also pointed to the strong influence of broader political discourse in shaping the dominant narrative around minority issues. These narratives often originate from state sources, such as the police, the coast guard, and government officials. As PJ1 observed, “The state always sets the pace. It provides the context within which the news originates. News always starts somewhere, right? The dominant narrative almost always begins with the state, with the police, with the coast guard, and so on. Our job, at the very least, is not to swallow it whole. To dig a little deeper, to always be cautious”. And PJ8 added, “For me, the political and the journalistic are very closely intertwined. The way politics frames a minority, how it chooses to portray and discuss that group, is often the same framing that journalism adopts”. This shows how important it is for journalists to question and think carefully about dominant narratives, especially when they involve marginalized groups.

Time pressure is another underlying cause of inadequate dominant media coverage of minority issues. Journalists highlighted how working under tight deadlines can result in rushed reporting and insufficient attention to detail. This pressure often leads media professionals to rely only on institutional sources, rather than engaging directly with minority communities. As a result, stories about minorities may be superficial or lack essential context, reinforcing the problem of non-inclusive media coverage. Several journalists also emphasized the lack of fieldwork and on-the-ground reporting as a major barrier to accurately covering minority issues. Without firsthand engagement, journalists are often limited to secondhand accounts, which can distort the realities faced by marginalized groups.

Another significant cause of non-inclusive media coverage, as highlighted by the interviewed journalists, is the lack of reporters who specialize in minority issues. PJ13 noted that while in other countries there are journalists dedicated exclusively to covering such groups, in Greece this is rarely the case. This lack of specialization limits the depth, nuance, and consistency of reporting on complex issues related to race, gender, migration, and mental health. According to the interviewees, many of their colleagues have not received adequate training to approach these topics with the sensitivity and insight they require, often resulting in stereotypical or oversimplified portrayals, nor do they have the will to do it.

In conclusion, the perspectives of interviewed journalists reveal that perceived dominant media coverage of minorities in Greece is characterized by superficial reporting, reliance on stereotypes, linguistic biases, and a general absence of minority voices. These patterns reflect deeper systemic weaknesses shaped by political pressures, limited resources (such as time), and a lack of specialization and fieldwork. The following section examines journalists’ reflections on their own sourcing practices as an essential component of responsible and inclusive reporting.

4.3. Sources: The Holy Grail of Reporting on Minorities

As illustrated in Figure 4, sources are a fundamental pillar of news reporting, especially when covering minorities, according to the journalists interviewed. As PJ5 said, “Sources are the Holy Grail, the sacred element, they are the most important thing. […] Sources can give you insider access to a topic, provide documents, offer a much clearer picture, and give you the background. So, sources are incredibly helpful in this regard. As I like to say, journalism without journalists is possible, but without sources, you don’t have anything”.

And although dominant media coverage continues to rely heavily on government and elite sources, participating journalists emphasized the importance of broadening the range of sources used in reporting. As PJ1 noted, “Obviously, journalism cannot function without engaging with official sources. But the more systematically one investigates a topic, the more one comes to realize that official sources often lie. That can be somewhat shocking at first. However, it is part of our job to methodically and rigorously determine what is true and what is not in what we read. In our approach to journalism, official sources are placed alongside other sources, they are analyzed and evaluated. They are not the final word on any issue”.

Journalists emphasized that diversity and pluralism in sourcing, including the voices of minorities themselves, are essential for producing balanced and credible reporting, especially on complex topics such as minority representation. As PJ1 noted, “When it comes to migration and refugee issues, for example, sources often include individuals from within these very communities—migrants and refugees who live in Greece or have passed through. They also include lawyers who specialize in these matters. Organizations, of course, play a vital role in this field—and the more official or well-established they are, the better”.

Along similar lines, PJ10 explained, “We’re going to speak with everyone. I mean in Lesvos, Moria—if we want to cover a story there. We’ll talk to ordinary people living in the camp. We’ll talk to representatives of their communities within the camp. We’ll speak with people working for NGOs. We’ll send questions to the Ministry. We’ll talk to the authorities, for example, at the Pre-Removal Detention Centre (PROKEKA). As many relevant sources as possible—but of course, they should be appropriate and connected to the topic”.

Pluralism, however, must go hand in hand with verification and fact-checking. As PJ10 pointed out, “Whatever person A tells you, you should always verify it with a second source. That second source could be another individual, a document, a thorough investigative report—anything, really”.

Accessing minority voices can be challenging, as PJ12 noted: “We always try to make it happen [give voice to minorities]. That’s why we travel, we go there, we find them during a visit they might be making from the center where they’re being held, often for legal support, and we take whatever time we can. It’s not always easy. As you know, access is often restricted. For example, the last two times I went to Lesvos, once during the pandemic, I was not allowed to visit the new reception center, using the pandemic as a pretext. The next time, I was simply denied access altogether”.

At the same time, as PJ1 emphasized, this should not be used as an excuse to avoid engaging with minority voices: “If you really want to find someone and talk to them, you can. It might be harder or easier, sure. I understand that not everyone speaks English, and it’s not always easy to reach them. They might be cautious, but that caution comes from very specific reasons, because they’re vulnerable, and because their experience tells them they can’t easily trust you just because you’re a journalist. But that’s exactly our job. That’s what we’re paid to do. And it’s always valuable to speak with them, because in so many cases, what they say shows up completely differently in the reports to the police or coast guard than what they’ll say to you—or in court, or anywhere they feel, let’s say, a bit safer. That goes without saying”.

Interviewees also stressed the importance of building relationships and trust with sources, particularly when dealing with vulnerable individuals or trauma. As PJ10 explained, “Something we’ve encountered quite often is that once we’ve built a relationship with certain sources and established a sense of trust, […] it’s as if they’re saying, ‘We feel comfortable with you, we talk to you”. PJ1 added, “You make sure to talk to people you trust and who trust you. They share things with you that are meant to be written, and things that aren’t. You establish an agreement regarding this, and as long as you uphold that agreement, the relationship builds, and trust grows between you”.

In conclusion, the insights shared by the interviewed journalists highlighted the central role of sources in reporting on minorities, not merely as providers of information, but also as pathways to more accurate, inclusive, and human-centered journalism. By engaging with diverse sources, particularly those directly affected, journalists are better equipped to capture the complexity of minority experiences, provide context, highlight inequalities, and even give voice to those who might point toward potential solutions. However, accessing multiple voices requires more than technical skills; it demands persistence, sensitivity, and the responsible handling of testimonies, along with the cultivation of relationships grounded in mutual trust. In the following section, journalists reflect on the role of ethical codes in shaping their work, the significance of personal ethics, and possible strategies for improving the quality and fairness of minority coverage through training and institutional reform.

4.4. The Moral Lens: How Important Is Ethics in Media Coverage of Minorities, According to Journalists?

Ethics in reporting on minorities emerged as a consistent and significant theme across the interviews, as shown in Figure 5. Journalists shared a common understanding that ethics is not merely an abstract ideal but a core component of journalistic identity and professional responsibility. Ethical considerations were discussed across three distinct yet interconnected levels: The union level, the media organization level, and the personal level. The importance of continuous training and professional development was also emphasized as integral to ethical journalistic practice. As PJ1 noted, “Journalists’ unions need to educate journalists on these matters; media organizations, often through the employers themselves, should do the same; and we, individually, should engage with foreign or reputable media outlets”.

At the union level, journalists expressed diverse perspectives on the role of professional associations in shaping ethical standards and responsibilities. Several participants acknowledged the value of journalists’ unions and professional codes of conduct as key reference points in guiding ethical behavior. As PJ1 explained, “At one point, during the Idomeni crisis, the Journalists’ Union in Thessaloniki initiated what was called the “Idomeni Charter”. It was an attempt to bring about change in terms of the language we use and the way we approach people”.

Despite the perceived importance of such frameworks, some participants pointed to the lack of effective oversight or enforcement mechanisms within unions. PJ10 reflected, “These codes of ethics are supposed to exist. Now… it really depends on each newsroom, how they follow them and whether they actually implement these ethical guidelines. I’m not sure they do. As for who could act as an oversight mechanism in that context, I don’t really know that either”.

Still, union-led ethical guidelines and procedures were generally respected as a collective benchmark that fosters a sense of shared identity and responsibility among practitioners. PJ2 illustrated this with a recent example: “For example, a recent complaint (before the Disciplinary Board) was submitted to the Journalists’ Union of Northern Greece (ESIEMTH) regarding a colleague and a media outlet that used racist language toward Roma people. This shows that we need to confront such issues and not let them go unnoticed. How can I put it? Whether it comes from those around us—our colleagues, our editors—or whether we witness something being cut or altered, we need to act. This should happen through our unions, through our labor representatives, or even individually”.

At the media organization level, ethical practices were seen as strongly shaped by the outlet’s editorial line, corporate structure, and overall newsroom culture. Participants noted an absence of internal ethical guidelines in Greek media outlets that significantly affects journalistic practice. As PJ2 observed, “In the UK, for example, there’s an impressive system in place—take the BBC, for instance, which operates across television and online platforms. It has a dedicated platform where viewers can submit complaints, and a single show might receive tens of thousands. I seriously doubt there’s any comparable infrastructure at ERT [the public broadcaster] or other state-owned media. At the BBC, they are required to respond to complaints. For instance, if I say I heard a presenter speak in a certain way and I believe it violates a specific guideline, they’re obligated to respond within 15 days”.

Finally, ethical responsibility was described at the personal level. Many journalists emphasized the importance of individual morality and personal integrity when navigating ethically complex or ambiguous situations. This internal “moral compass” was frequently cited as the final line of defense, particularly in cases where institutional support or clear guidelines were lacking. As PJ1 put it, “That’s why we say that, while rules, guidelines, and training are all important, at some point, it also depends on the conditions under which a media outlet assigns you a story: immediately, quickly, under pressure, and so on. And in the end, the final line of defense is the journalist’s own ethics and personal red lines”.

PJ2 echoed this view, stating, “In my opinion, in the end, no code of ethics can replace the journalist’s own judgment”. Similarly, PJ5 reflected on the limits of formal frameworks and the power of personal conviction: “I’m a member of the Journalists’ Union of the Athens Daily Newspapers (ESIEA). Have I actually read the code of ethics? Do I remember it? What do I remember? I remember what I personally perceive as my duty: your job is to write for the vulnerable, for those who are weak, marginalized, and voiceless”.

When asked about possible strategies for improving the quality and fairness of minority coverage, journalists pointed out the need for training. As PJ2 noted, “I believe it’s a threefold approach: training for those already working in the field, the education provided at universities, and our own personal vigilance”.

PJ12 also emphasized the value of training—formal or otherwise—when reporting on minority issues: “Now, when it comes to LGBTQ+ individuals, that’s probably the only area where we might have received something resembling specialized “training”—though I wouldn’t quite call it that, as the term feels a bit too formal or heavy. We’ve been reporting on the trans community for quite some time, and through that work, we’ve engaged with people who play a very active role in shaping public discourse around these issues. We’ve participated in various discussions aimed at developing a more conscious and thoughtful approach about how we speak, how we describe situations, and what constitutes harmful language, even when it might not immediately appear that way”.

Notably, several participants stressed the importance of developing specific guidelines for managing trauma during the reporting process, whether at the union or organizational level. They actively called for the creation and implementation of such protocols, recognizing their absence as a significant gap in current ethical practices. As PJ9 remarked, “I think that, for me, the most important and fundamental step would be to open up a conversation, perhaps through seminars, about establishing a specific code of conduct on how we approach people who are experiencing trauma. People who may be grieving, who have survived a disaster or a shipwreck, or who may be victims of torture. For me, resolving this issue should be the top priority […] Because trauma concerns everyone. It might affect someone with a refugee background, or someone dealing with mental health challenges, so it’s not limited to just one category of people”.

In sum, the interviewed journalists experience ethics in journalism as a multi-layered construct. At the union level, this includes modernizing ethical codes in creative and inclusive ways, integrating provisions for trauma-sensitive reporting, establishing mechanisms for implementation and oversight, and providing relevant training and seminars. At the organizational level, Greek media outlets are encouraged to develop clear internal ethical guidelines and accountability systems. Finally, at the personal level, journalists must be empowered to act with integrity in the face of growing professional and systemic pressures, an effort that can be supported through ongoing education, skills development, and peer support.

5. Discussion

This paper employed semi-structured in-depth interviews and comprehensive thematic analysis to explore how Greek journalists perceive and navigate the challenges of reporting on minority communities. It offers valuable insights and a rare behind-the-scenes perspective on journalistic perceptions, routines, and decision-making processes when covering these complex and often sensitive issues within a shifting, highly politicized, and increasingly challenging media landscape. Rather than detached observers, the interviewed journalists, each one of them with experience in covering minority issues, emerge as critical, self-aware, thoughtful agents, navigating an unstable media ecosystem shaped by economic uncertainty, political pressures, and rapid technological change. These findings call for further interpretation through the lenses of framing theory and media ethics scholarship, both of which help illuminate the tension between individual agency and institutional structure in journalistic practice.

Framing theory, particularly Entman’s (1993) four key frame functions—that is; problem definition; causal interpretation; moral evaluation; and treatment recommendation—offers a useful lens for analyzing how journalists in this study understood and responded to dominant narratives about minority communities. While dominant media narratives often portray minorities as threats to public order or helpless victims (Aldamen & Jaleel, 2024), the journalists in this study described efforts to reframe these portrayals. These findings echo those of Calderón et al. (2021), who found that journalists in Southern Europe often advocate for more individualized and in-depth reporting that brings visibility to migrants’ lived experiences, recognizing them not merely as subjects but as the protagonists of their own stories. Rather than blaming minorities for social tension, participants identified structural pressures, such as editorial policies, political influence, and resource constraints (acceleration of news cycles, tight deadlines, lack of specialized training), as primary drivers of biased coverage. Their moral evaluations prioritized empathy, while their recommended solutions included more diverse sourcing, trauma-informed practices, and training in ethical reporting.

Central to these efforts is the inclusion of minority voices in news production, not only as sources of information but also as co-constructors of meaning and key pathways to more accurate, inclusive, and narrative-rich reporting grounded in lived experience. Journalists emphasized that actively engaging with individuals from marginalized communities allows them to better represent complexity and uncover structural injustices. Their sourcing practices challenge the dominant reliance on official voices, a pattern well documented in journalism literature (Kalfeli et al., 2022; Youngblood, 2017), and suggest that ethical reporting requires building trust with those traditionally excluded from mainstream narratives. In this sense, sourcing becomes not merely a procedural step but an ethical intervention that allows journalists to expose inequalities, provide meaningful context, and amplify underrepresented perspectives. Finally, the practices proposed by participants align closely with key theoretical frameworks, particularly that of peace journalism (Galtung, 2006; Youngblood, 2017), which advocates for more constructive, rights-based, and solutions-oriented approaches to diversity.

Within this context, and despite the fact that there was clear consensus among participants on the problematic nature of dominant portrayals of minority communities, a striking contradiction emerged: The same journalists who criticize these portrayals often operate within media outlets that continue to reproduce them. In light of this, their personal initiatives, such as incorporating inclusive sourcing practices, demonstrated their individual commitment to more ethical and empathetic reporting rather than reflecting broader institutional change. This tension reflects a core challenge of contemporary journalism: the gap between personal ethical intentions and systemic constraints. Moreover, it aligns with broader arguments in media ethics scholarship that reconceptualize journalism ethics, not as a fixed set of rules enforced through rigid codes, but as a dynamic, multi-layered process negotiated in practice. In this view, ethical decision-making is shaped by the interplay of institutional constraints, political discourse, peer interactions, and individual values (Voakes, 1997).

In summary, this study reveals how journalists themselves are reflexive about the dynamics between minority representation and journalism ethics and are actively seeking more ethical and inclusive approaches, despite limited support. By highlighting this gap between critique and practice, the study calls for renewed attention to the institutional, corporate, and educational conditions that shape ethical journalism.

6. Conclusions

This study offers a grounded and timely contribution to ongoing debates on minority representation, journalism ethics, and inclusive reporting. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with Greek journalists, it sheds light on the tensions between individual ethical commitments and systemic pressures within a politicized and resource-constrained media landscape. By examining how journalists frame, source, and narrate stories about minority communities, the study highlights both the challenges and opportunities for more inclusive and people-focused reporting practices.

Several limitations must be acknowledged. The study employed purposive sampling of journalists with experience in covering minority issues, which, while rich in insight, may limit generalizability. Moreover, the absence of minority-group journalists within the sample constrains our understanding of how identity intersects with ethical practice and representation. Additionally, findings may be affected by social desirability bias, as participants may have presented their own work in a more favorable light.

Finally, the study is grounded in the cultural and political context of the Greek media landscape, and while some conclusions may be relevant in other national settings, others may not translate directly. However, the systemic issues identified, such as the dominance of official sources, the marginalization of minority voices, and the constraints of newsroom resources, are not unique to Greece. These dynamics are observed across Southern and Eastern European countries, making the findings relevant for understanding media practices in comparable socio-political contexts. These limitations highlight the need for further research that includes more diverse journalistic voices and cross-national comparisons.

Despite its limitations, this study offers valuable insights into journalists’ perspectives on media coverage of minorities. Participants consistently emphasized the need to integrate ethics and trauma-informed training into journalism education and newsroom routines, moving beyond abstract codes toward applied, context-sensitive practices. They also stressed the importance of establishing internal accountability mechanisms, such as newsroom guidelines and internal review boards, to embed ethical reflection within institutional structures.

These findings point to a broader shift toward inclusive and human-centered journalism that aligns with the principles of peace journalism, emphasizing structural awareness, responsibility, and social inclusion. Journalism schools and unions have a key role to play in fostering this shift by promoting critical engagement with representation, framing, and identity. Ultimately, advancing ethical journalism requires more than individual resolve; it demands sustained organizational commitment and systemic reform. Future research should explore how such reforms take shape in other media systems and include the perspectives of minority journalists themselves, whose experiences are crucial to reimagining inclusive journalistic practice.