Support us
Reporting on people displaced by war, occupation, flooding or political violence requires more than accurate questions and a functioning recorder. Internally displaced people may still live inside their own country, yet they can face grief, financial insecurity, disrupted schooling, family separation and fear of retaliation. Interviewing them without causing harm means treating safety, dignity and control as part of journalistic accuracy.
For Australian audiences, this issue connects to familiar reporting responsibilities around refugee settlement, humanitarian arrivals and disaster recovery. A Ukrainian family in Melbourne, a newly arrived person in Sydney or a survivor rebuilding life after a regional emergency may have different legal and cultural circumstances, but each deserves care rather than a dramatic storyline.
Consent should be informed, voluntary and ongoing. Before recording, explain who you are, which organisation you represent, where the material may appear, whether the interview will be translated and whether the person can withdraw. Avoid promising anonymity if it cannot be guaranteed across audio, video, photographs and social media.
A person who agrees in a shelter, reception centre or crowded railway station may feel pressured by the setting. Give them time to decide, offer a private alternative and make clear that refusing will not affect access to assistance. In Australia, journalists should also consider obligations under the Privacy Act 1988, state and territory privacy rules, and defamation law when publishing identifying details.
Displacement can make an interviewee dependent on interpreters, aid workers, landlords or officials. That imbalance may affect what they disclose. Use a qualified interpreter where possible, brief the interpreter on confidentiality, and address the interviewee directly rather than speaking about them as if they were absent.
Language can also impose a political frame. A person may describe themselves as a resident, parent, worker or student before accepting the label “victim”. Reporting on political identity requires the same care: historical perspective can illuminate how national narratives shape personal experience, but it should never replace the individual’s own account.
Useful practices include:
Trauma-informed interviewing does not require a reporter to ask for graphic detail. Begin with present circumstances, immediate needs and what the person wants the public to understand. Open questions such as “What changed for your family?” allow the interviewee to set boundaries more effectively than a sequence focused on violence.
Do not assume that recounting events is therapeutic. Repeated interviews can intensify distress, especially when several outlets approach the same person after a major attack or evacuation. A journalist should monitor signs of exhaustion, disorientation or fear and stop when continuing would serve the story more than the source.
For Australian readers accustomed to brief conversations over coffee or at community events, the pace may feel unfamiliar. A quiet interview in a Melbourne neighbourhood centre or a settlement service in western Sydney may require several meetings, transport support and time for trust to develop.
Verification remains essential when accounts concern military movements, missing relatives, property seizures or suspected war crimes. Corroborate dates, locations and documents through independent sources, but do not demand evidence that could expose the interviewee or relatives to surveillance and reprisals.
Investigative reporting can reveal systems behind individual suffering, including corruption and profiteering. The Foundation’s analysis of war profiteering shows why a source’s testimony should be connected to documents, financial records and expert scrutiny rather than used as a complete investigation by itself.
Protect digital material carefully. Strip unnecessary metadata from photographs, store recordings securely and limit access to raw files. In Australia’s competitive media market, the pressure to publish quickly for websites, broadcast bulletins and social platforms must not override source protection.
Harm can occur after the interview, particularly when an image or quotation circulates beyond the original audience. Consider whether a face, village, workplace, school uniform or family relationship could identify someone to hostile actors. Explain why a detail is necessary, and remove it when it adds colour but increases danger.
Independent Ukrainian reporters often work under direct threat while maintaining verification standards. Their experience, described in journalism under fire, demonstrates that public-interest reporting and protection of vulnerable sources must be planned together.
A practical editorial check can include:
Australia’s everyday media habits make this especially important: a story shared in a family group chat, reposted by a local council page or discussed at a weekend market can travel far beyond its original context. Responsible reporting gives displaced people meaningful control over their story while preserving the public’s right to reliable information.
