Support us
Few subjects test a journalist's conscience like the inner lives of children scarred by conflict. These stories shape international understanding, drive aid, and hold perpetrators accountable. The very vulnerability that gives them power also creates conditions for harm when reporters move too quickly or lean too heavily into pathos.
Australian newsrooms from Sydney to Melbourne have refined child-safe reporting practices over years, shaped by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the work of the Australian Press Council. Walkley Award judges routinely scrutinise how outlets handle minors. These local benchmarks offer a useful starting point for anyone reporting from Kharkiv, Kherson, or the Donetsk borderlands.
Commercial pressure to publish harrowing footage is intense. Networks such as ABC, SBS, and The Guardian Australia debate how much to show and how to caption it. Those lessons translate directly into conflict reporting.
What follows is a practical guide shaped by field experience and editorial standards used in Australian newsrooms. It draws on established ethics codes and on the long-form work foundations supporting independent journalism routinely commission. The realities of front-line reporting costs shape every choice a correspondent makes about who to approach and how.
Preparation is a moral duty, not an optional step. Familiarise yourself with instruments such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Child Rights and Reporting Principles developed by ethical journalism networks. In Brisbane and Adelaide newsrooms, editors often reference the Australian Press Council's principles on privacy and children as a baseline, then layer additional safeguards for cross-border work. Foundations such as the Free Press Foundation extend this preparation through structured programmes, including election interference training that builds scenario planning and source-protection habits.
Map potential harm before any interview. Will the child's community recognise them? Could publication trigger retaliation or family separation? Consider safer alternatives — a drawing, a voice memo, or a composite character — that preserve the truth without exposing a real minor. These questions prevent regret when a child is later harassed or re-traumatised by their own viral image.
Standard consent forms are not designed for war-affected children, who may be displaced, in shock, or acting under the influence of a parent, teacher, or armed actor. Best practice involves multiple conversations, often with a trusted adult present, in the child's preferred language. In multicultural Australian newsrooms, similar principles guide coverage of refugee communities from Sudan, Myanmar, Iraq, and Ukraine.
Tell children, in age-appropriate terms, where their words and images might appear: a news website, a printed magazine, a documentary, an overseas broadcaster. They need to know that once something is online, removal is rarely complete. Where possible, give them a genuine right of refusal after the fact. Consent should be an ongoing relationship, not a one-off transaction.
Long, confronting questions rarely produce better journalism with children. Keep sessions short, choose familiar settings, and let the child guide the pace. Drawing materials, a game, or a courtyard walk can reset the room between heavier questions. The ABC's internal guidance on interviewing minors echoes techniques from child psychology: open-ended prompts and clear signals that the child can stop at any moment.
Avoid leading questions about guilt or specific battlefield events unless the child raises them. Listen for what they share — a favourite teacher, a missing pet, the taste of bread from their grandmother's village — and let emotional weight emerge. Where trauma is explicit, summarise with care, or consider whether a parent's recollection can carry the weight.
Visuals from conflict zones have shaped Australian public opinion on wars from Vietnam to Ukraine. A single frame can re-traumatise a child or expose them to identification long after the byline has aged. Consider whether blurred faces, silhouettes, or hands-only compositions still convey the reality. Sound design matters too: avoid ambient crying or gunfire as default atmosphere, and caption distressing images with context rather than spectacle.
If a story warrants a recognisable image, the child and their family should see it first, in print or on screen, and have the chance to withdraw consent. Editors in Sydney mastheads have occasionally reversed publication decisions after such reviews. Where archive material is reused years later, re-check consent and consider whether the contemporary context still justifies the exposure.
The reporting relationship does not end when the story goes live. Children and families interviewed in conflict may need follow-up support: information about aid organisations, a contact at a trusted outlet, or a message checking in after the first wave of attention fades. Trauma-aware newsrooms build these callbacks into their workflow.
Reporters themselves are not immune. Australian journalists returning from conflict increasingly access support through the MEAA, employer programs, or specialists familiar with moral injury. Foundations such as the Free Press Foundation complement this through long-form work such as the agricultural land investigation, which holds power to account over months and years. Such preparation helps bring children through war coverage without leaving bruises of our own.
