Number of Journalists Detained by Outlet 1 journalist 2-3 journalists 4+ journalists 58% of affected outlets 29% of affected outlets 13% of affected outlets Media observers noted that having a team member detained had serious consequences for an outlet.65 The outlet lost some of its often already stretched capacity, impacting its ability to operate. Dealing with a detained journalist required additional resources for taking on responsibilities such as legal costs and providing support to families. Outlets also needed to invest in risk mitigation to reduce the likelihood of further detentions, including supporting other journalists to hide or go into exile. Every detention also undermined team morale, increasing fear, anxiety, and isolation. DIVERSE IMPACT The military’s detention of journalists affected a diverse range of media outlets. Most detained journalists worked for private independent media outlets (86%). However, the military’s arbitrary approach to violating the rights to freedom of expression and association also led to a sizable minority of journalists detained who worked for military-aligned “crony” outlets or state media run by the military-controlled Ministry of Information (8% combined).66 The 99 affected media outlets served a variety of audiences. Half of the journalists detained worked for 45 outlets with a national focus (52%), and the other half worked at 40 outlets with a local regional or ethnic focus (43%). A small proportion worked for 11 foreign outlets (6%), such as the BBC. The military’s past discriminatory practice of oppressing outlets serving Myanmar’s ethnic minorities continued by detaining journalists working at ethnic media (16%). For the first time, the military also detained many journalists working for outlets serving the majority Bamar ethnic group (27%), from which most soldiers originated. At least half of the journalists detained worked for media outlets that had moved their core operations into exile abroad due to increased risks since the coup started (53%). The 65 Key informant interviews with four media leaders carried out on 28 September 2023. 66 ICNL used a broad definition of “journalist” in accordance with international standards. As a result, ICNL’s inclusive scope included individuals associated with “pro-military” media, including state media, that some monitors did not regard as journalists. 21