CPJ has tracked and documented cases of journalists killed, imprisoned, or missing in relation to their work since 1992.
CPJ’s researchers and editors employ the tools of journalism and a rigorous verification process for all cases included in the organization’s publicly available data. Each case is independently confirmed through information from at least two credible sources — such as accounts from interviews with family members, colleagues, eyewitnesses, and legal representatives; media reports; local and regional press freedom groups; and official or third-party investigations. CPJ never relies on a single unverified account.
This page explains how CPJ defines journalists and media workers, investigates cases, and classifies them within its “Killed,” “Imprisoned,” and “Missing” datasets.
As part of its rigorous application of terms and categories, CPJ maintains a Data Glossary that defines specific terms used in its research, which may differ from everyday usage. CPJ data terms on this page are denoted by capitalization and quotation marks — for example: “Killed”, “Murder.” Additional information about CPJ data can be found in the FAQs below.
Who counts as a “Journalist”?
CPJ defines journalists as people who regularly cover news or comment on public affairs through any medium to report or share fact-based information with an audience.
This includes, among others, reporters, correspondents, editors, fact-checkers, photojournalists, videographers, cartoonists, columnists, and, in some cases, publishers and media executives who are directly engaged in editorial work.
Who counts as a “Media Worker”?
CPJ defines media workers as individuals who contribute to and support the news-gathering, production, or dissemination process. This includes translators, drivers, fixers, security personnel, and administrative staff working with news organizations or journalists.
Media workers are included in CPJ’s public data only when they are determined to have been killed in direct connection to their work. They are not included in the “Missing” or “Imprisoned” datasets.
When and how data is updated
CPJ makes every effort to ensure that its data is accurate at the time of publication and to make the appropriate updates to the database as new information becomes available. CPJ updates the “Killed,” “Missing,” and “Imprisoned” datasets on a rolling basis. (From 1992 through 2024, the “Imprisoned” dataset was updated annually; see more in the FAQs below.) In many cases, the research involved in verifying and analyzing new developments takes time. Unless otherwise noted, the data on CPJ’s website is the most current and accurate.
Cases are updated to include significant new developments, which may result in a case being reclassified. Many cases remain active for years and involve multiple complex developments. For this reason, CPJ has a long-standing policy of updating its data and the accompanying narrative accounts without issuing formal corrections as new information becomes available over time. In certain cases, a record may be removed from public view when new information leads CPJ to determine that a case falls outside its mandate or for security concerns, such as the safety of the journalist and their family.
CPJ will publicly record when it has removed a journalist from the database for a reason outside of security concerns. It will make these updates available in a downloadable csv. Prior to 2025, these types of changes were issued in the relevant annual reports on killed or imprisoned journalists. CPJ continues to issue corrections for factual errors in alerts and other content published on the CPJ website.
Right of reply
As part of its commitment to fairness and journalistic standards, CPJ offers relevant parties an opportunity to respond before publication, and may update records if responses are received afterward. However, in many cases, CPJ does not seek a right of reply from non-state actors, such as militias, criminal gangs, or insurgent groups.
CPJ methodologies
Killed
CPJ has kept detailed records on journalist killings since 1992. CPJ researchers independently investigate and verify the circumstances behind each death to document cases of journalists and media workers who have been “Killed” in direct connection with their work.
CPJ categorizes killings as “Confirmed” when there is credible, verifiable evidence that the death was related to the individual’s work as a journalist.
“Confirmed” killings are classified as
“Crossfire/combat,” which CPJ defines as a killing on a battlefield or in a military context;
“Dangerous Assignment,” which CPJ defines as a killing while covering a demonstration, riot, clash between rival groups, mob situation, etc.; this includes assignments (including travel to and from reporting) that are not expected to entail physical risk but turn violent unexpectedly;
“Murder,” which CPJ defines as a targeted killing, whether premeditated or spontaneous, in direct reprisal for the journalist’s work; or
“Unknown,” when preliminary information supports multiple classifications while CPJ continues to investigate.
The classification process involves careful evaluation and reevaluation of available information from multiple sources, including family, colleagues, media reports, civil society, and government or independent investigations. Classifications may be changed as additional information becomes known.
“Unconfirmed” killings include those where CPJ suspects a link to journalism, but lacks sufficient proof or where the circumstances remain unclear. CPJ continues to investigate these cases to determine a motive for the killing.
Since 2003, CPJ has listed “Media Workers” whose killings are “Confirmed,” meaning directly related to their professional activities. Media workers whose deaths are “Unconfirmed” are not tracked in this dataset.
CPJ excludes from its “Killed” list deaths that result from causes unrelated to journalism — such as personal disputes (e.g., gambling debts, love affairs), accidents, or natural causes.
Missing
CPJ’s “Missing” dataset tracks cases of journalists who have disappeared — or are suspected to have been forcibly disappeared — in connection to their work and whose whereabouts remain unknown. These individuals may have been abducted or gone missing under suspicious circumstances, with no conclusive evidence confirming their death.
Journalists held by actors exercising control over territory but lacking formal recognition as sovereign states by the United Nations or the broader international community are typically classified as “Missing,” even when the journalist’s location is known. This includes armed groups or de facto authorities. CPJ recognizes that some cases of journalists missing in conflict zones or areas under the control of militant groups might go unreported because of the difficulties of tracking and confirming information in these volatile regions.
Although many journalists included in CPJ’s “Missing” dataset are feared dead, CPJ generally does not classify journalists as “Killed” unless there is credible, verifiable information confirming their death — such as the recovery of a body or other conclusive evidence. Journalists who disappear while in government custody are often classified as “Imprisoned” to reflect that CPJ holds the government accountable for the journalists’ fate.
CPJ considers the wishes of the journalist’s family and whether publicizing the case could jeopardize the individual’s life or chances of a safe return.
Imprisoned
CPJ tracks journalists who are detained, imprisoned, or otherwise deprived of their liberty by state authorities in connection with their work in its “Imprisoned” dataset. This includes those held by governments or their agents, and encompasses a range of conditions such as house arrest, forced conscription, or medical furlough under guard. Journalists abducted or disappeared by non-state actors — such as criminal gangs or militant groups — are not included in this dataset; those cases are classified as “Missing.”
CPJ considers the wishes of the journalist’s family and whether publicizing the case could jeopardize the individual’s life or chances of a safe release from state custody.
Dynamic tracking database model (2025-present)
In 2025, CPJ began dynamically tracking journalist imprisonments. This ongoing effort records detentions, releases, and other relevant case developments as CPJ learns about, investigates, and verifies them, providing a more accurate and up-to-date picture of journalist detentions and related trends.
However, the frequent occurrence of short-term detentions — sometimes followed by release and re-arrest — creates a revolving-door situation that complicates comprehensive tracking. While CPJ monitors and reports on these shorter detentions, the high volume and rapid turnover of cases can lead to unavoidable delays or temporary data gaps. As a result, there may be a lag between an event and its appearance in the database, and cases may be updated or reclassified as new information emerges.
This dynamic approach aims to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of journalist imprisonments globally. CPJ’s goal remains to accurately track every detention of a journalist lasting at least 48 hours.
Annual census model (1992-present)
Since 1992, CPJ has conducted an annual prison census, capturing a snapshot of journalists incarcerated at midnight local time on December 1 each year. This census provides a consistent year-over-year measure and does not include journalists who were imprisoned and released throughout the year if they were not in state custody at that precise moment.
CPJ maintains the annual prison census each December to reflect updated information and provide a consistent, historical baseline for comparison. Adjustments to historical data are occasionally made to correct duplications, resolve errors, or ensure consistent application of CPJ’s methodology.
Special applications of the Killed methodology
In response to the challenges of documenting journalist killings in certain high-risk conflict zones, CPJ adopted a modified approach for select contexts in early 2022.
When the speed, scale, or conditions of a conflict — including restricted access, media blackouts, and ongoing hostilities — impede timely, in-depth investigations, CPJ includes all journalists whose deaths and professional credentials it can verify as “Confirmed” cases, while continuing to investigate the precise circumstances of their deaths. Under this application, journalists killed in conflict-related attacks — including bombings during which they were not actively reporting — are included.
This methodology was first applied during the Russia-Ukraine war in February 2022 and has been in use for Israel’s siege of Gaza since October 2023. The goal is to avoid undercounting journalists — particularly local reporters — in fast-moving and opaque environments where traditional confirmation methods are not feasible.
If subsequent research clearly shows — beyond reasonable doubt — that the journalist’s death was wholly unrelated to their journalism, the case will be reclassified and removed from the “Killed” dataset. If the individual is found to have been actively participating in armed hostilities — i.e., acting as a combatant — they will also be removed from the “Killed” dataset. (See FAQ below for how CPJ determines combatant status.) These removals will be recorded in the [downloadable CSV] referenced above.
Limitations and challenges
CPJ recognizes that some cases may go unreported, especially in environments where the entire civilian population faces threats and the flow of reliable information is heavily restricted — such as conflict zones, closed societies, or areas controlled by hostile non-state actors. Tracking, verifying, and safely gathering information in these settings is particularly difficult. Additional challenges include government denial, mis- and disinformation that can obscure or delay verification, internet blackouts and other deliberate information restrictions, language barriers that complicate reporting and verification, complexities in determining whether a journalist’s case is directly related to their work, and evolving circumstances that require ongoing review and potential reclassification of cases.
Data Glossary
CPJ’s Data Glossary defines the key fields and values used in CPJ’s published journalist data (Killed, Missing, and Imprisoned) and is intended as a reference for researchers, advocates, policymakers, journalists, and the general public. Review CPJ’s Data Glossary [here].
Frequently asked questions
Below are answers to common questions about the methodologies CPJ employs to produce our “Killed,” “Missing,” and “Imprisoned” datasets.
For details on data terms, classifications, and their definitions, see the [CPJ Data Glossary].
Killed
- Why do you list some killings as “Confirmed” and others as “Unconfirmed”?
A case is classified as “Confirmed” when we are reasonably certain that the journalist’s killing was related to their work as a journalist. “Unconfirmed” cases are those where a connection is suspected but cannot yet be proven. (See [Methodology] for details.)
- Does “Unconfirmed” mean the death was unrelated to journalism?
No, CPJ does not include cases where the killing of a journalist is clearly unconnected to their journalism. When CPJ designates a killing as “Unconfirmed,” it means that their killing may be connected with their journalism, but there is insufficient evidence for reasonable certainty. Cases where death is clearly unrelated to a journalist’s work — such as illness, accidents, or personal disputes — are excluded from CPJ’s public database.
- What criteria does CPJ use to decide whether a killing should be “Confirmed”?
CPJ researchers across the globe investigate the deaths of journalists to determine whether they were killed in connection with their work. We interview families, friends, colleagues, and authorities to learn as much as possible about the circumstances of each case. Details we investigate include whether the journalist was on assignment at the time of the killing, whether they had received threats, and whether they had published work that might have attracted the anger of government authorities, militant groups, or criminal gangs.
A team of senior CPJ editors and researchers reviews all cases where the motive is not immediately clear and makes any necessary changes to case classification as new information becomes available. - Why is CPJ’s list of “Killed” journalists different from other organizations?
Lists compiled by other organizations may include journalists whose killings CPJ has not connected to their work with reasonable certainty. Other organizations may also list media activists.
- Why are “Media Workers” only included in the “Killed” dataset?
CPJ includes media workers — such as drivers, translators, logistical staff, etc. — in our “Killed” dataset when it is “Confirmed” that their deaths are directly linked to their journalism. This inclusion began in 2003, following the then-unprecedented number of killings of journalists and media workers during the U.S. Invasion of Iraq.
Media workers are not included in CPJ’s “Missing” or “Imprisoned” datasets at this time. This is not a judgment on the value of their contributions or the risks they face, but is based on CPJ’s capacity and time constraints. We continue to assess whether and how to expand this coverage.
- Are embedded journalists included in CPJ’s “Killed” dataset?
Yes, CPJ includes journalists who were killed while embedded with groups, such as armed forces, militias, protest or social movements, criminal groups, or other organized actors, provided the journalists are working as such and are not participating in combat (e.g., not engaged in armed hostilities or carrying a weapon). CPJ considers them civilian journalists under international law. If an embedded individual is practicing journalism, but they are also a combatant, they are excluded from the “Killed” dataset.
Missing
- What does it mean when a journalist is classified as “Missing”?
A journalist is added to CPJ’s “Missing” database when either they have vanished and their whereabouts are unknown, or when they are being held by militant groups, criminal gangs, or other non-state actors. - How does CPJ decide when to list a journalist as “Missing,” as opposed to “Killed” or “Imprisoned”?
CPJ includes cases in the “Missing” database when the journalist has disappeared — or is suspected to have been forcibly disappeared — in connection to their work and their whereabouts remain unknown. Journalists held by non-state actors, including armed groups or de facto authorities not recognized as legitimate state actors, are also classified as “Missing” — even when their location is known.
Although many journalists included in CPJ’s “Missing” dataset are feared dead, CPJ generally does not classify them as “Killed” without credible, verifiable information confirming their death — such as the recovery of a body or other conclusive evidence. Journalists who disappear while in government custody are often classified as “Imprisoned” to reflect that CPJ holds the government accountable for the journalists’ fate.
- How does CPJ classify cases of journalists who go “Missing” and later reappear?
CPJ updates and reclassifies all cases as information comes to light. If a journalist classified as “Missing” is found, the case will be re-evaluated and re-classified.
If they are found dead and it is determined that their killing was related to their journalism, they will be re-classified as “Killed.” If they are found to be held against their will in state custody, they will be marked as “Imprisoned.” If they are found with life and liberty, CPJ will mark their “Missing” status as having ended and remove them from the active “Missing” dataset.
Imprisoned
- Who is included in CPJ’s imprisoned data?
CPJ includes journalists and, in some cases, media technicians and board members or trustees, who are jailed by a recognized state authority because of their work or the reporting of their outlet. Journalists under house arrest are included in CPJ’s prison census if their movements and ability to report are restricted.
- Why does CPJ carry two “Imprisoned” datasets?
CPJ has tracked journalist imprisonments since 1992 using an annual census model that captures a snapshot of all journalists behind bars as of midnight local time on December 1. This approach allows for consistent year-over-year comparisons and helps illuminate long-term regional and global trends.
In 2025, we added a dynamic database to track imprisonments and releases on a rolling basis, in closer-to-real time. This model more accurately reflects the reality of many press freedom contexts, allowing us to tell a more complete story of journalist imprisonments worldwide.
The two methodologies now function in parallel: the annual census approach provides historical continuity, and dynamic tracking allows for more detailed and comprehensive tracking.
- Do other forms of enforced state custody, such as house arrest or forced conscription, count as imprisonment in CPJ’s data?
Yes. Journalists under house arrest, institutionalized against their will, or forcibly conscripted are included in CPJ’s “Imprisoned” dataset if their movements and ability to report are restricted.
- How are releases recorded?
Regional teams update our database as soon as they have verified that an “Imprisoned” journalist has been released. The narrative account may not include this, but a red tab at the top of the page will indicate the journalist has been “Released.”
- What happens if a journalist is released and re-arrested?
CPJ treats each detention that lasts 48 hours or more as a separate event. If a journalist is arrested and held for 48 hours or more, released, and then re-arrested in connection with their work, both detentions will be tracked as separate events in our “Imprisoned” dataset. Each case is updated as new information becomes available.
This approach enables us to capture a more comprehensive view of press freedom violations, including patterns of repeated criminalization and revolving-door imprisonment.
CPJ data practices
- Why does CPJ maintain its own data instead of relying on that of governments or international bodies?
CPJ maintains its own data because in many parts of the world — especially in conflict zones or countries under authoritarian rule — governments are unwilling or unable to accurately report attacks against the press. In many cases, they may be the ones responsible. International mechanisms often depend on state cooperation, which can limit timeliness and independence. CPJ’s data fills this gap by providing independent, case-level documentation — sourced, verified, and maintained by regional experts using rigorous journalistic standards.
- How often is the data updated?
CPJ updates its data continuously throughout the year. Our regional teams monitor developments daily and update records as new information becomes available. The data reflects what we can confirm at any given time, and is revised as our understanding deepens.
- Does CPJ ever remove a case from its database?
Yes. CPJ strives to maintain accurate data based on all information currently available. Cases will be removed if new evidence shows they fall outside CPJ’s mandate—meaning either the individual is not classified as a “Journalist” per CPJ’s definition, or the incident is deemed unrelated to journalism. Cases may also be removed from public view if there are security concerns about publicizing a case, such as risks to journalists or their loved ones.
Starting in November 2025, CPJ will disclose when it has removed a journalist from the database for reasons other than security concerns. It will make these updates available in a [downloadable csv.] Before 2025, such updates were included in the relevant annual reports on killed and imprisoned journalists. CPJ continues to issue corrections for factual errors in alerts and other news content on its website.
- Does CPJ’s website show a journalist’s full history of statuses? Can a journalist appear with multiple statuses?
An individual journalist’s page displays only their most recent status (Killed, Missing, or Imprisoned) and the accompanying narrative. If the journalist has prior entries, the narrative generally references those earlier incidents to provide context. More published content about the journalist is available at the bottom of their page.
For those who appear in multiple datasets — for example, a journalist who was “Imprisoned” and later “Killed” — that history will remain reflected in reporting and data sets from that time (such as past prison censuses).
CPJ is actively exploring ways to better surface a journalist’s full status history in future updates.
- How does CPJ handle conflicting information?
CPJ treats all cases with the same level of care, independence, and fairness expected of serious journalism. When accounts conflict — whether from governments, families, colleagues, or other sources — CPJ seeks independent corroboration through multiple sources. When dealing with conflicting narratives, CPJ presents the relevant versions with sourcing and analysis.