How to do no harm when interviewing vulnerable people: Ethics for broadcasting in emergencies

Details

1. Identifying vulnerable groups

Identifying vulnerable groups early in the planning process helps to ensure ethical considerations are made. Here we identify a few of the vulnerable groups and reasons for their vulnerability, but you may think of others.

 

Children: Interviewing minors requires heightened sensitivity. Children are often unable to fully understand the long-term implications of their participation in media. Best practice is to obtain consent from a parent or guardian, particularly for those under a certain age. When discussing sensitive topics like violence or assault, it’s important to prioritize the child’s emotional and mental well-being. For an example of sensitive interviewing, refer to Farm Radio's This is How I… podcast episode on interviewing minors.

Refugees and displaced persons: Refugees and those displaced by emergencies, such as flooding, are particularly vulnerable, not only due to the loss of their homes but also because they are at heightened risk of secondary violence, including rape, harassment, or theft. Broadcasters need to be aware of the potential safety risks that sharing their stories publicly could pose. It’s equally important to recognize and mitigate the risks of re-traumatization during interviews by being respectful of their personal boundaries and emotional state. Finally, remember that their displacement is not their only character trait. These individuals were once part of a community, with jobs and families, and hope to return to that life. Try to avoid stereotypes when portraying refugees and displaced persons.

Survivors of trauma (e.g., victims of violence, abuse, or conflict): People who have lived through traumatic experiences are at risk of being re-traumatized if interview questions are not carefully framed. Survivors may experience emotional distress when recounting painful memories, so broadcasters should be mindful of their tone, timing, and depth of questioning. Additionally, there may be legal or security implications if the survivor is in a sensitive or unstable situation.

Individuals from marginalized communities (e.g., ethnic, gender, or sexual minorities): People who belong to marginalized groups face systemic challenges, including discrimination, social exclusion, and threats to their personal safety. These individuals may already feel vulnerable in their everyday lives and may hesitate to participate in interviews due to the risk of further marginalization or backlash. Broadcasters should consider the societal and cultural context in which these groups exist and ensure that their dignity is upheld throughout the interview process.

Those suffering from mental health issues: Individuals experiencing mental health challenges may not always be in the right frame of mind to consent to an interview or may have difficulty communicating their thoughts clearly. Mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, or PTSD, can be exacerbated by probing or intrusive questioning. Broadcasters should be aware of the interviewee’s emotional state and avoid triggering questions that could worsen their condition.

It’s also important to recognize that vulnerability is not always static—it can shift depending on the specific situation or environment. For example, a person may not typically be considered vulnerable, but certain factors (e.g., political unrest, personal trauma, or legal insecurity) could make them more susceptible to harm in certain contexts. Broadcasters should constantly assess and reassess an individual’s vulnerability both before and during the interview process, staying aware of external pressures that may increase the risk to the interviewee.

2. Understanding the context

Understanding the cultural context in which vulnerable people and survivors live is vital. Interviewers should seek information on cultural norms and values of the community, as well as the current context, to ensure respectful engagement.

Building relationships with local leaders can help establish trust and facilitate a better understanding of how to approach interviews sensitively. In some contexts, you might want to  ask community leaders to participate in the interviews to ensure they are respectful and accurate. This collaboration fosters trust and allows for more authentic narratives to emerge, which can avoid stereotypes and promote understanding. You may want to consider getting informed consent from the community at large, recognizing the collective ownership of stories within indigenous cultures.

In other contexts, you will want to use other techniques for making your interviewee feel comfortable while better understanding the cultural context. This could include interviewing friends or trusted community members as well, or even having them be present for the interview.

Engaging with community structures can also aid in supporting survivors and ensuring that their needs are prioritized in the interview process. This can include having a social worker present during the interview.

Learn more in resources 8 and 13.

3. Informed consent

Gaining informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical broadcasting, particularly when interviewing vulnerable individuals. It goes beyond simply getting a verbal or written agreement; informed consent ensures that the interviewee fully understands the implications of participating and feels empowered to make a genuine choice. Here’s what the process involves in greater detail:

• Clearly explain the purpose of the interview: The broadcaster must begin by explaining the reasons for the interview in simple, straightforward terms. The interviewee should know why their story is important, how it will contribute to the broader narrative, and what the potential outcomes of sharing their experiences could be. This helps build trust and transparency, allowing the interviewee to make an informed decision about their participation.
• Inform the interviewee how their information will be used and shared: It’s essential to outline how the information gathered during the interview will be used—whether it will be broadcast on radio, shared online, or published in written formats. If the material is intended to be shared widely or in multiple formats, this must be communicated clearly. If there’s a possibility that the interview could be re-shared or archived for future use, the interviewee should also be made aware of this.
• Ensure the interviewee fully understands what they are agreeing to: Some individuals may struggle to understand the potential consequences of public exposure, particularly if they belong to vulnerable groups. Broadcasters should use accessible language, avoiding technical jargon, to ensure that the interviewee fully comprehends what participation entails. This includes discussing potential risks, such as increased public scrutiny, social backlash, or legal implications.. Ensure you invite the interviewee to ask questions or seek clarification before agreeing to proceed
• Ensure comfort with participation: Vulnerable individuals may not always feel fully empowered to say "no" to an interview, especially if they perceive the broadcaster as an authority figure or feel societal pressure to participate. Broadcasters must create a non-coercive, safe space where interviewees feel completely comfortable declining or opting out of the interview. Verbal and non-verbal cues should be monitored to detect hesitation, and the interviewee should be reassured that there will be no negative consequences for refusing to participate.
• Special considerations for children: When interviewing children or minors, informed consent requires additional safeguards. Consent must be obtained from a parent or guardian, ensuring that they understand the risks and benefits of the child’s participation. Additionally, get the child’s voluntary agreement to respect their autonomy. This also ensures that the child is aware of the interview and is willing to participate willingly, without coercion. It’s also important to adjust the language used when addressing children, making sure the information is age-appropriate and clear.

Informed consent is more than a legal formality; it is about safeguarding the rights and dignity of vulnerable individuals. By ensuring that interviewees fully understand the scope and implications of their participation, broadcasters can foster trust and minimize harm.

4. Safeguarding privacy and confidentiality

Protecting the privacy and confidentiality of vulnerable interviewees is a critical aspect of ethical broadcasting. Vulnerable individuals may face increased risks, such as stigmatization, harassment, or even physical danger, if their identity or sensitive information is exposed. Broadcasters must be diligent in maintaining strict confidentiality to protect interviewees from harm.

• Avoid revealing identifiable information: Personal details like full names, specific locations, or other identifiable characteristics should be excluded from the broadcast unless the interviewee has given explicit permission. This is especially important when dealing with survivors of trauma, refugees, or individuals in legal or personal jeopardy. Even seemingly minor details, such as references to landmarks or family members, could inadvertently reveal someone’s identity and put them at risk.
• Use pseudonyms or vague identifiers: In cases where anonymity is crucial, broadcasters should consider using pseudonyms or vague identifiers. For example, instead of referring to someone by their real name, they could be called “John from an undisclosed village” or “a survivor from northern Kenya.” Care should be taken to ensure that pseudonyms are neutral and respectful, not sensationalized or exoticized (like “Desert Warrior” or “Shadow from the Slums”), which could further stigmatize the interviewee. This may include having someone else read their quotes to disguise the voice. A tape talk is a great format for this approach. Learn more about the tape talk format in Farm Radio’s Bh2.
• Ensure sensitive personal details remain confidential: Interviewees may disclose personal information during the interview that is not intended for public consumption, such as details about their mental health, family situation, or ongoing legal matters. Even if this information is shared openly during the conversation, broadcasters should clarify whether the interviewee is comfortable having it broadcasted. Sensitive details that could compromise the individual’s safety or dignity should be edited out or kept confidential unless there is clear, informed consent to share them.
• Secure storage and handling of interview material: In addition to maintaining confidentiality during the interview and broadcasting stages, it is equally important to protect the privacy of vulnerable individuals by securely handling any recorded materials. Digital or physical recordings, transcripts, and notes should be stored in a secure manner, accessible only to authorized personnel. Broadcasters should have clear protocols in place for how they will handle and eventually dispose of sensitive information to ensure privacy is maintained even after the interview has aired.

By prioritizing privacy and confidentiality, broadcasters safeguard vulnerable individuals from potential repercussions, such as stigmatization, public scrutiny, or even retaliation. This not only fosters trust between the broadcaster and the interviewee but also upholds the ethical principle of "Do No Harm" throughout the reporting process.

For more information, see resource 15.

5. Thoughtful questioning

When interviewing vulnerable individuals, the phrasing and structure of questions can significantly impact their emotional and psychological well-being. Broadcasters must approach questioning with thoughtfulness, sensitivity, and respect to ensure the interview is not an intrusive or harmful experience for the interviewee. Here’s how thoughtful questioning can be achieved:

Avoid re-traumatizing with overly personal or distressing questions: Ensure you have a clear purpose for interviewing a vulnerable person. Define your objective and the scope of your story. Are you trying to raise awareness, promote policy change, promote peace? Question whether your motives are to help the vulnerable individuals, promote understanding or peace, or to sensationalize. Also consider whether this person is the best person to serve your story.

Questions that force the interviewee to recount distressing experiences can cause emotional harm. Instead, focus on open-ended questions that allow them to share their story at their own pace and comfort level. For example, rather than asking, "Can you describe the worst part of your experience?" consider asking, "What would you like to share about your journey?"

Frame questions to empower the interviewee: Vulnerable individuals may feel less powerful or confident in being asked to share their stories. By framing questions carefully, you can offer them a sense of control over what they disclose. For instance, using prompts like "Is there anything you would like to add?" or "What do you feel is important for people to understand?" gives them the autonomy to decide the direction of the conversation. This helps avoid creating pressure or the feeling that they must share uncomfortable or painful details.

Avoid sensationalizing experiences: While emotional or traumatic stories may draw audiences, broadcasters must be wary of turning vulnerable people’s hardships into sensationalized content. The purpose of the interview should always be to inform and raise awareness, not to shock or entertain. Ensure that your questions focus on meaningful insights, solutions, and the human experience behind the story, rather than emphasizing tragedy or hardship for its shock value. For example, rather than asking “Tell us in detail how your child died while crossing the desert,” you can ask “Can you share the challenges your family faced while migrating?” This question allows the interviewee to control the narrative and avoids probing unnecessarily painful details.

Be empathetic and patient: Vulnerable individuals are not always familiar with the dynamics of an interview. Some may struggle to articulate their thoughts or become emotional during the conversation. Approach them with patience, offering them time and space to express themselves without feeling rushed. Empathy should guide your tone, acknowledging their experiences and showing that you genuinely care about their well-being. Listening attentively without interrupting is key to fostering trust and creating a safe environment.

In thoughtful questioning, the goal is to treat interviewees with the utmost respect, ensuring they leave the interview feeling heard and dignified, rather than exposed or exploited.

6. Language use

Language is one of the most powerful tools a broadcaster has, and it can shape how stories are perceived by the audience. When interviewing vulnerable individuals, broadcasters must be cautious about the language they use to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes, stigmatizing individuals, or diminishing their humanity.

Avoid stigmatizing or harmful language: Certain terms can carry negative connotations or reinforce stigmatization. For example, phrases like "victim" can evoke pity, whereas "survivor" is empowering and focuses on resilience. Avoid language that objectifies or dehumanizes individuals, such as defining them solely by their circumstances (e.g., “beggar,” "the disabled" or "the poor"). Instead, adopt language that respects their dignity and portrays them as individuals with agency. Emphasize what people are doing, or their resilience. For example, rather than saying “a widow left destitute,” you can say “a mother rebuilding her life.” You can be culturally-sensitive by using terms that the person and / or their community uses. For example, they may consider themselves “displaced people” rather than “refugees.”

Be mindful of stereotypes and negative portrayals: Broadcasting that reinforces stereotypes about certain groups—such as refugees, people with disabilities, or those from marginalized communities—can perpetuate harmful societal biases. For instance, portraying refugees solely as helpless or dependent can ignore their resilience, resourcefulness, and strength. It’s important to represent vulnerable people as complex individuals with diverse experiences, rather than relying on simplistic or damaging tropes.

Use person-first language: Person-first language emphasizes the individual rather than defining them by their circumstances. For example, saying "a person experiencing homelessness" instead of "a homeless person" helps shift the focus from the condition to the individual. Similarly, saying "a person with a disability" is preferable to "a disabled person." This language choice humanizes the interviewee and prevents reducing their identity to their struggles.

By using considerate and inclusive language, broadcasters can create narratives that challenge bias, foster empathy, and portray vulnerable individuals in a more respectful and dignified light.

Be aware of your own biases when reporting on issues and try to remain neutral and respectful.

7. Accuracy and responsibility

Accuracy in reporting is vital, but it is even more critical when dealing with vulnerable people. Inaccurate reporting can misrepresent someone’s story, worsen their situation, or lead to public misunderstanding. Broadcasters have an ethical responsibility to ensure that the content they share is truthful, fair, and precise.

Avoid misrepresenting the interviewee’s words or experiences: In the editing process, it is important not to alter the context or meaning of what was shared during the interview. Misrepresentation can skew the public’s understanding and could harm the individual’s reputation or well-being. Be careful not to paraphrase or reframe someone’s words in a way that distorts their message or intention.

Steer clear of speculative comments or assumptions: Journalists and broadcasters must avoid making assumptions about an interviewee’s experiences or motivations. Stick to the facts as provided by the interviewee and resist the temptation to speculate on details that are unknown. Speculative remarks can mislead audiences and may also unfairly affect how the interviewee is perceived by the public.

Verify facts before including them in reports: Even small inaccuracies can have significant consequences for vulnerable individuals. Broadcasters must take the time to verify any claims, data, or background details shared during the interview. This might involve cross-checking information with credible sources or consulting experts to ensure that the portrayal is accurate. By maintaining accuracy and acting responsibly, broadcasters ensure they are not just telling compelling stories, but also protecting the integrity and safety of the individuals involved.

If an interviewee’s testimony conflicts with known facts, handle it sensitively. Recognize that in recounting their experience, they may have made mistakes as memories are often vague, and their view of an event is subjective. You can always follow up with the interviewee to clarify their statements, noting that you’ve received conflicting accounts of the event and wanted to offer them the opportunity to clarify their statement. You can also focus on the bigger picture, including the impact of their experience on them and their community. If these discrepancies may affect the story’s accuracy, you can use a disclaimer like “This account reflects the individual’s personal experience. Other sources have reported various details.”

8. Offering post-interview support

Broadcasting ethics extend beyond the interview itself. Vulnerable individuals may experience emotional or psychological distress after sharing their stories. As such, broadcasters should take steps to ensure that their engagement with vulnerable interviewees doesn’t end once the microphone is turned off.

Ensure the interviewee understands how the content will be used: After the interview, it’s important to reiterate to the interviewee how their content will be used, when it will be published or broadcast, where it will be shared, and who might access it. This helps interviewees feel reassured about the scope of the exposure they’ll receive. It’s also helpful to offer them an opportunity to review the content, so they are comfortable with the final product before it goes public.

Provide resources for emotional or psychological support: Sharing difficult personal stories can be emotionally taxing, and some individuals may experience trauma or distress as a result. If an interviewee appears upset after the interview, offer them information about local counseling services or support groups. While broadcasters are not responsible for providing direct support, pointing interviewees to appropriate resources can make a significant difference in their well-being.

As a proactive step, you can invite the interviewee to have a trusted friend present for the interview.

Allow interviewees to withdraw consent post-interview: In some cases, individuals may regret sharing their stories after the fact. Broadcasters should provide interviewees with the option to withdraw their consent for the interview’s publication or broadcast if they feel uncomfortable with the exposure. Offering this option shows respect for the interviewee’s emotional needs and protects them from post-interview regret or harm.

Post-interview support emphasizes that broadcasters are committed to the well-being of their interviewees beyond the broadcast itself, contributing to a more ethical and compassionate approach to journalism.

 

9. Ethical considerations before broadcasting

Before airing or publishing content involving vulnerable individuals, broadcasters should pause to consider the potential ethical implications. Rushing to broadcast sensitive material without careful thought can lead to unintended consequences, including harm to the interviewee.

Review the material for ethical standards: Conduct a thorough review of the interview to ensure it aligns with ethical guidelines. This includes checking for any elements that might inadvertently reveal too much about the interviewee or portray them in a negative light. It’s also a chance to ensure that consent, privacy, and accuracy have all been respected.

Consider the impact on the interviewee’s life: The potential consequences of airing a story involving a vulnerable person should be carefully weighed. Could the broadcast put them at risk of harm or stigmatization? Might it expose them to public criticism or legal jeopardy? Broadcasters should strive to minimize any negative impacts by adjusting the content or withholding certain details if necessary.

Consult experts or ethical guidelines if in doubt: When faced with ethical dilemmas, it’s always better to seek guidance than to proceed with uncertainty. Consult ethical guidelines from respected journalism organizations, or speak with experts in media ethics or law. This can help broadcasters make informed decisions and avoid actions that might cause harm to vulnerable individuals.

By conducting a final ethical review before broadcasting, journalists can ensure their reporting is not only informative but also sensitive and respectful of the people they are covering.

Conclusion

Ethical radio broadcasting is not just about delivering stories—it’s about doing so in a way that honors the dignity and safety of the people behind those stories. Broadcasting provides a powerful platform for informing the public, but with that power comes the responsibility to ensure that reporting does not cause harm, especially to vulnerable individuals.

Ethical broadcasting goes beyond compliance with standards; it is about fostering trust, upholding human rights, and contributing to the well-being of society. When broadcasters prioritize ethical considerations, they not only strengthen the integrity of their profession but also help shape a media landscape that values compassion as much as its values accuracy.

In a world where vulnerable populations often lack platforms to share their experiences safely, ethical journalism ensures that their stories are told with respect and care, reinforcing the core mission of the media: to inform, empower, and protect. By following these ethical principles, broadcasters can play a critical role in building a more just, understanding, and empathetic society, where the truth is reported without compromising the well-being of those it affects.

References for further reading

1. BBC Editorial Guidelines – Addressing Vulnerable Contributors: The BBC's comprehensive editorial guidelines serve as a gold standard for ensuring ethical practices in media reporting. These guidelines emphasize sensitivity when working with vulnerable contributors, offering specific rules about gaining informed consent, respecting privacy, and ensuring that no harm comes to individuals as a result of their participation in media programs. The guidelines also outline the steps broadcasters should take to protect children, trauma survivors, and other vulnerable groups from exploitation or misrepresentation. This is an essential resource for anyone in broadcasting, providing clear standards to maintain journalistic integrity while safeguarding vulnerable individuals. Read the guidelines here: https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/vulnerable-contributors

1. UNICEF Ethical Guidelines for Reporting on Children: UNICEF's guidelines provide a globally recognized framework for reporting on children, particularly those in vulnerable or challenging circumstances. These guidelines stress the importance of obtaining informed consent from both the child and their guardian, protecting children’s identity, and using language that empowers rather than stigmatizes. They also cover how to navigate ethical dilemmas when reporting on children in situations of conflict, displacement, abuse, or poverty. These guidelines are indispensable for broadcasters who wish to ethically report on children while upholding their rights and dignity. Find the guidelines here.
2. Reporters Without Borders – Handbook for Journalists: This handbook offers invaluable insights and practical advice for journalists covering sensitive and potentially dangerous topics. While it addresses a wide range of issues, its focus on ethical journalism when engaging with vulnerable people is particularly noteworthy. It provides detailed guidance on how to approach individuals who have experienced trauma, conflict, or persecution, including strategies for asking sensitive questions and avoiding re-traumatization. The handbook underscores the importance of responsible reporting and is a must-read for broadcasters dealing with ethical challenges in their work. The handbook is available for download 2015-rsf-safety-guide-for-journalists.pdf.
3. Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma – Interviewing Vulnerable People: The Dart Center specializes in helping journalists navigate the complexities of interviewing trauma survivors and other vulnerable groups. Their resources offer practical strategies for conducting interviews in a way that minimizes harm and respects the emotional state of the interviewee. They provide training on how to ask thoughtful, empathetic questions, handle emotional interviews, and ensure that the interview process itself does not exacerbate the interviewee's trauma. The center’s guidelines are particularly useful for broadcasters seeking to balance the need for compelling storytelling with the ethical responsibility to do no harm. Learn more: https://dartcenter.org/topic/interviewing
4. The Ethical Journalism Network is a coalition of more than 70 media groups from across the globe. They place emphasis on five core principles: truth and accuracy; independence; fairness and impartiality; humanity; and accountability. They have several resources and online courses to learn more about important topics such as ethics in journalism, migration reporting, and  photography ethics. https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/training

These references offer critical guidance to help broadcasters navigate the ethical complexities of interviewing and reporting on vulnerable individuals. By integrating these resources into their practice, journalists and broadcasters can ensure that their work remains ethical, respectful, and sensitive to the needs of those they interview.