How Journalists Can Build (and Break) Trust With Survivors

Survivor voices are important in creating a better understanding of the impacts of sexual violence. Journalism, when done morally and ethically, can be a powerful tool in sharing survivor experiences. We often hear that survivors are unwilling to be identified as a survivor of sexual violence or fearful of speaking out, especially in the context of journalism, and there are a myriad of understandable reasons why this can be the case. Without establishing and maintaining trust, journalists can expect that difficulty speaking with survivors as subjects will continue. While all survivors are different, have different experiences, and deal with the aftermath of sexual assault in different ways, here are some ways that journalists can build trust with survivors and avoid the tragic mistake of losing survivors' trust permanently.

1. Remember that survivors are whole people. We are not just our experience. Sexual violence can feel like a death of a part of someone who experiences it, but we are whole people outside of what someone did to us. Even if we're still willing to talk about our experiences years later, that does not mean that we are still "haunted" by or dwelling on what happened day in and day out. We have a world of aspirations on top of an experience that we may occasionally speak about. Distorting this reality is a perfect way to break trust with survivors.

2. Survivors cast in dim, shadowy lighting as if to appear as though we recently crawled out from under a bridge to tell a spooky tale about the rape kits is not empowering to any survivor or the story of survivor experiences as a whole. When this is done, it very much comes across as though it was done in bad faith and with ill intentions. We are not shadowy swamp figures lurking in the aftermath of what we've been through. We're talking to you because we have the courage to do so, despite being frequently beaten down by society when speaking on this topic.

3. Exploiting survivors' pain to sensationalize a story is also not empowering to survivors. When a subject asks for a moment to regain their composure, perhaps try honoring that as any ethical reporter would. If a survivor asks to skip a question that was upsetting and brought them to tears for a grand total of 3 seconds out of a 30 minute interview, do not take that off-the-record moment and put it in slow motion at the very beginning of a televised segment. It makes an entire group of people appear weak and pathetic for your own selfish gain rather than resilient, strong, articulate and composed as they have proven themselves to be 99.9% of the time. It is not a fun, dramatic moment and it is not interesting to exploit a person's vulnerability in a moment where privacy was asked. It is unethical.

4. Simple fact-checking is so important! Be sure to check your facts and verify your sources just like you learned in school. When facts are distorted for the sake of a sound bite, the blowback falls on the survivor. We have been through enough. Do not distort our words.

   
   

Survivors will not want to talk with the media if we cannot expect to be treated ethically and morally. It might be best to not burn bridges with an entire community, further silencing people who are eager for the larger community to better understand what we have been through and what needs to change on a larger scale to better protect our communities going forward. Without trust, there is nothing except for another layer of betrayal that survivors are left to deal with - again.

**There is nothing weak or pathetic about crying when recounting instances of sexual violence. However, in the media, the perception when this extremely brief moment is placed at the beginning of an entire segment that makes subjects appear hysterical will often make the subject less likely to be believed, is contrary to the alleged purpose of the story, and is a cruel and sadistic artistic decision for an alleged journalist to make.