Desperately seeking trauma fodder? Journalists should read this first
How do journalists report on people’s personal experiences without being exploitative or causing further harm? Jenny Valentish attempts to find some middle ground.
Last May I warned myself I would have to suspend my dignity for a year. I had written a research-heavy book about women and drug use in which I was also the case study, so I was bound to be asked squirmingly personal questions. It was a baptism of fire, because although I’ve been a journalist for decades, I’d never written about myself. I anticipate that this post will be the last time I do so.
What do people associate you with? Your job title? Your Walkley award? Your wilks score? For me, it’s ‘trauma’. In real life, I’d never used the word in relation to myself (I’m English, we’re more likely to call it ‘a bit of bother’), but one chapter of Woman of Substances is about predictors of addiction, including childhood sexual abuse, and within the context of that I mentioned my own experience. Those few pages became the handwringing focus of most of the media coverage.
Woman of Substances doesn’t even hint at personal trauma on the back cover or in the press release – because it’s a resource for women, not an emotional purge. But the reality is, behind most of my interviews was a fruitless battle to change topic. In one video feature, I’ve watched myself deflect for more than six minutes before finally giving in. It’s sort-of entertaining.
Basically, a lot of practices in the media exacerbate or even re-traumatise people. Sometimes its unexpected, sometimes it sociopathic. The question to ask yourself is that “feature” that is going to be chip paper wrapping or a forgotten segment one day really worth (in order of importance) a) the damage to the subject b) the damage to your own conscience c) the damage to society and d) the damage to your career?
Of course not. Don’t do it. One awkward meeting where you boss is pissed off with you for refusing to do something unethical is better than your own personal reputation and self esteem being damaged.
A few years ago I worked in an agency…a top tier Sydney one, well respected but where inappropriate behaviour was the norm. It was just about boys being boys. I even saw it play out that young men who didn’t want to be part of it, were ostracised…because they were not ‘one of the lads’ and their careers stalled too as they felt excluded from ‘the banter’ and were not invited to hang out with the in crowd, who made a really big deal of their sexual exploits. There were frequent ‘bets’ about who they could sleep with, with conquests noisily discussed on a Monday morning…’ugly girls’ who they’d banged for a laugh, with the poor girls hearing the gossip and being totally humiliated. With one Monday morning one of the ring leaders proudly boasting how he’d stolen some young girls contraceptive pills as a trophy. Pretty sad behaviour. It was a form of bullying for the girls involved. I never spoke up as I didn’t want to be labelled as a grass as these boys were the popular ones, the cool crowd. Many now hold very senior management positions in the industry, here and overseas. I watched these promotions happen over the years and it makes me realise I should not have stayed a silent observer.
A good article, and useful for journalism training.
However, the author has overlooked one resource, which should be among the others she listed.
https://dartcenter.org/asia-pacific
These resources (including the one from Dart) are all used for the education of new journalists at universities in Australia.
Kindest
Some of this criticism is fair, but not all. The difficulty comes when people want to use their past experiences selectively – to present themselves as an authority on a particular topic because of their lived history. This is extraordinarily difficult to navigate. Of course you can’t simply plough in and drag them through the worst moments in their life – but you cannot, in all fairness to debates which require even handed treatment – simply allow their self edited narrative to stand unquestioned either. Bri Lee is a good case in point. She has her own experience – which is a valuable addition to the public discussion – but presents herself as an even handed researcher, rather than advocate for a particular position. The cases in many of her publications are summarised to fit the narrative. Not untrue, exactly, but stripped of nuance, contradiction and uncertainty that comes out in real evidence from the real world. So when you read these summaries of course you say “how can the system be so broken that it can deliver this result ?”. If you don’t examine and challenge assertions – even those that are difficult to talk about – you end up with a very one sided outcome.