Between Institutional Inertia and Systemic Vulnerability: Understanding Invisible Threats to Journalists’ Safety

Research on journalists’ safety reveals two intertwined dimensions: physical risks in con-flict zones and less tangible risks to performance in comparatively safe environments. In Latvia, as elsewhere in Europe, journalists face online humiliation, harassment, hate speech, and attacks on their professional credibility. This raises two central questions: how do journalists perceive safety risks, and are media institutions equipped to provide adequate support? This paper exam-ines the perceptions of Latvian media professionals regarding work-related safety issues and the mechanisms available to mitigate stress and risks. A mixed-methods design was applied, com-bining literature analysis, a two-round Delphi expert survey (25 and 23 participants from national and regional media, non-governmental organisations, and journalism-related organisations), eight semi-structured interviews with solicitors and media law specialists, case studies of court decisions, and three focus group discussions (with legal experts, media managers, and investi-gative journalists). The results highlight a complex threat environment in which multiple risks coexist, while support structures remain limited. Women, regional reporters, Russian-language journalists, and freelancers emerge as the most vulnerable groups, revealing safety risks shaped by both group invisibility — where their professional identities are insufficiently recognised — and concerns of invisibility — where persistent threats are normalised or dismissed. While institutional shortcomings are partly due to resource constraints and insufficient legal or psychological exper-tise, reluctance and reactive practices further weaken organisational responses. A lack of effective action from law enforcement and courts, combined with the rise of strategic lawsuits against public participation, reinforces a “culture of impunity”. A paradox emerges: online humiliation and harassment are omnipresent and thus routinised, making them effectively invisible despite their persistence. By contrast, cyberattacks and strategic lawsuits against public participation cases are highly visible, as they directly affect media companies’ legal and financial interests. This asymmetry of visibility exacerbates the erosion of journalists’ professional integrity and their societal role.