You're listening to a stage talk titled protecting
the people within your research. This week we
were joined by the Fuller Projects editor -in
-chief Eliza Inyangwe. Eliza provided invaluable
tips for speaking to potential sources and ways
to ensure your reporting does more good than
harm. Join us as we discuss the people at the
centre of your story and the editorial decisions.
that should be taken to protect them. This talk
was hosted by me, Charlotte Mar, on Thursday
the 22nd of May 2025 in the Bellingcat Discord
server. Welcome to this week's stage talk. I'm
fascinated by today's topic. It's something that
I hold quite dear to my heart. Building on the
wonderful talk by Dr. Alexa Konig, and if you
haven't listened to that, please check out our
RSS feed where you can find all of our stage
talks, previous ones including the one by Dr.
Alexa Konig. We wanted to revisit the issue of
consent when it comes to reporting on sensitive
subjects like gender -based violence. Today,
we're joined by the Fuller Project's editor -in
-chief, Eliza and Yang Wei. The Fuller Project
is a newsroom dedicated to reporting on issues
that affect women with a mission of enacting
positive change for women and I will drop the
link to the reporting in a second in the chat.
It is a unique setup to have a newsroom with
such a sole focus and within this sole focus
the team work on an array of topics from labour
rights to health to climate change. Eliza is
not here today to look at a singular topic, Carla.
She's here in her editorial role capacity to
give an insight into how her team has garnered
a reputation of trust and transparency when it
comes to sharing individual stories. We're going
to explore what preserving the dignity of those
featured in your reporting looks like, both in
a traditional journalism sense and when it comes
to open source research, which many of you in
this room practice. What questions should you
be asking yourself when you're looking to engage
with testimonies or coming to publish a story
on a sensitive subject? Hopefully we'll be covering
that today. Before I pass on to Eliza, a little
reminder that while we'll be taking questions
in the chat, which you can find on the top right
-hand side of your screen, it's important to
note this is being audio recorded. So if you
do not want me to mention your name when I bring
up your question in the discussion, please note
that within your question. All right, okay Eliza
the floor is yours and we'll come back in a little
bit for Q &A. Hey, hi, Charlie. Hi, everyone.
Nice to meet you all and to be invited into your
community for this conversation. I'm hoping very
much to make it a conversation. So I will talk
for as little time as I can so that perhaps in
the Q &A and in the conversation with you, I
might not just share more details, but also learn
from all of you as well, because part of the
reason I was very excited to do this is I'm so
admiring of the work of OSINT investigators,
obviously in journalism spaces for the last several
years. The sense that we can hold power to account
in different ways. We can reveal truths that
have been obscured by getting granular and piecing
together big data or other forms of open source
information has been something that I have really
admired. And so it is a real privilege also for
me to learn from this community as well as to
share from my own experiences to it. In the introduction,
I will just tell you a little bit more about
myself. This is very much part of my journey
to doing this work and has helped inform some
of the perspectives that I have developed over
the years. and in working with other folks. I
didn't actually study journalism. I was born
in Cameroon. I won't give you the whole bio.
I'm sure that information is all online. So you
can find that pretty easily. But grew up in a
context where a lot of the reporting on whether
it's Cameroon or any part of Africa is around
sort of like patriarchy. And women are usually
presented as victims in stories and never have
any agency. And so when I eventually started
working in journalism, my first role was at The
Guardian where I was for many years. I got really
fed up of seeing women from the African continent
reflected in a very sort of two -dimensional
way and tried to set up my own platform focusing
on African women's stories. And I've spent the
entirety of my career, I think, really just kind
of like nerdishly obsessing around two things,
trying to broaden what we consider a story, the
types of subjects that are worth reporting on,
interesting for audiences, as well as trying
to change who we think of as storytellers, who
gets to tell the story who gets to determine
what the narrative is. And that is the work that
I've continued at the Fuller project, which I
joined in January, I run their newsroom from
Amsterdam, where I moved to be managing editor
of a member funded journalism platform called
The Correspondent. And so I've worked for a range
of different news organizations, including the
Bureau of Investigative Journalism, where I had
a very funky role called community organizer,
which is not usual in newsrooms, right, to have
community organizers. And I think at the at the
heart of my career is always about thinking about
the relationship of people to the media. And
I think, of course, being a product of coming
into the newsroom at the height of sort of...
social platforms and thinking about how they
could really rethink our relationships with subjects
in our stories has been very much something that
I've explored in our work. The Fuller Project
itself is 10 years old, started off first by
focusing on the missing voices in conflict. So
it was often the voices of women. And every time
I say women, I mean that expansively. So women,
genderqueer folks, gender diverse communities,
and has also then broadened its journalism. to
think about the under -reported stories, whether
it's in conflict situations or other contexts.
So we know that only 0 .02 % of mainstream international
reporting focuses on issues that disproportionately
affect women. And so the Fuller Project exists
to try and bridge that gap in coverage. We also
know that a lot of audiences, particularly young
people and people who identify as women, are
less interested in the traditional subjects that
journalism and journalists have been obsessed
with. And so again, it's trying to sort of serve
those audiences also. I have worked on investigations
and stories that I've had to do with, you know,
that had required mining sex worker data. We
did a very sensitive investigation at the Guardian,
sorry, at CNN. I've just noticed that the video
component of that is up for an Emmy. I'm no longer
there, so if we win, there will be no statuette
in my house. But it was an investigation on sexual
violence against Rohingya hydras, and hydras
are a gender minority in that region. of South
Asia. We've looked at the experiences of children
as they're being sort of exploited online, as
well as Last year, I believe I did an investigation
with a reporter in India following an Afghan
family that fled Afghanistan and crossed illegally
into Pakistan. And the reason I named these examples
is that they're all examples of sensitive where
there's either sensitive data, underage characters,
people who if their stories were to come to light,
as much as we want to hear them so that we can
empathize with their experience, it can put them
in greater danger. We spent a long time thinking
and talking about how we presented the story
of the Afghan sisters who fled with their little
brother and what the repercussions would be,
not just for them as they were undocumented in
Pakistan, but also for other people who might
be using the same essentially illegal or informal
migratory routes and whether the Taliban might
take retaliatory action to then close down those
routes following their departure. involved at
some point, multiple phone calls with the US
State Department. But that is a story over a
beer and not for now. So those are the kinds
of ranges of things that we've worked on. And
in preparing for this call, thinking about how
to protect the people in your investigation,
I thought it might be useful to sort of establish,
and forgive me if I'm starting with the basics,
but not knowing who is in the room, I think it
might just be useful to establish an answer.
Why is it important to protect people? I think
a lot of us get into this work. because we are
either social justice minded like think that,
you know, systems and processes are really unfair
and want to expose them. We want to see things
change or we might be interested in the technology,
the approach, you know, less about the people,
less even about the systems change and just more
about how far can I go using this tool or this
approach? But I think it is also important to
remember that I think the difference to my mind
between journalism and academic research is that
we don't, journalists don't see ourselves as
just providing information, we tell stories.
And the difference is that stories are meant
to connect emotionally with people and human
beings connect with the experience. of other
human beings more than they connect with data
or information, right? It's really hard to conceptualize
how many people have died in an explosion and
much more impactful when you hear the experience
of one person whose life was lost in that explosion
to think about the sort of relative harm. And
we sort of have this great capacity for empathy
to then multiply that across the large numbers
and don't so much register emotionally when we
just hear the large numbers. And so it's. Often
important to think about, well, it's important
to think about why to protect the people in your
research and your investigations because often
doing so is a matter of life and death for them.
That might not be immediately apparent. They
might not be currently in a situation where their
lives are at risk, but we never can fully think
about the repercussions and the retribution that
might come for exposing and revealing harm. As
I mentioned with the Afghan story, example that
I gave. It's often also the case that if we're
speaking truth to power, power has power that
it can use against people and oftentimes depending
on where we ourselves are situated, if that harm
or that power might not be exercised against
us, but against the people who have worked with
us to help report the story. And so thinking
about it in a sort of networked way, not just
about me as the storyteller, me as the investigator
and the reporter, but who had any touch points
with this reporting and might be a bit more vulnerable
in terms of their nationality, in terms of their
gender, in terms of lots of different identifiers
and the ways in which the ways in which we show
up means that we are exposed to different types
of harms. Right. So we're not all. share the
same sort of privilege of safety in all different
spaces that we might be in. Mental trauma is
often as bad as physical trauma. And so oftentimes
when we've collected the data that we may have,
and we then need a character and we're thinking,
okay, I just need someone to tell me their story,
asking them to rehash their lived experiences
is probably going to be and or can be re -traumatizing
for them. And it is a question not just on whether
if or how we ask, if we ask rather, but how we
ask them to do so. It's often about also thinking
in sort of a trauma -informed way, which is that
people who have experienced trauma are not going
to give you a sort of blow -by -blow sequential
event, sequential retelling of the events of
their lives, and oftentimes it does mean that
we have to go back multiple times or that In
the work of journalism or journalistic investigation
and research, having to sort of what I would
say, bring the receipts right when someone tells
you a story, we both have to assume that people
are trustworthy because that. making that assumption
builds trust with them, but at the same time,
we have to prod because we need to substantiate
anything that they've said, right? And so there
is a way in which we can do this that can either
break trust or build it, that can re -traumatize
people. that can actually cause further harm
to them aside from the harm that they initially
experienced. And that every journalist or investigator
is representing not just themselves, but the
wider industry. And oftentimes you might not
be thinking about this, but if you're in marginalized
communities, really anywhere in the world, right?
I lived in London, if you are in... Migrant communities
in central London, they have a distrust of the
media as much as folks who live in Liverpool,
where I went to university, because of how someone
some time ago went about doing their reporting,
went around doing their journalism, and that
breaks trust that is often very, very difficult
to repair. And so when folks parachute into a
community, get the quotes that they need, leave
and report it, when any of our work is seen as
extractive, it might not harm us directly, but
it definitely impacts on the capacity of other
researchers and other journalists and investigators
that come after us to be able to work with that
same community. And the fact is... that especially
if you're looking at systemic issues, we might
want to revisit a community over and over again,
right? We might want to speak to people who have
been harmed, maybe not the same characters. If
you're doing work on sort of like sexual, I don't
know. grooming gangs, for example, the chances
are that if that is place -based, you might be
coming back to a same community over and over,
and that lots of journalists may have walked
that path before you. And so the ways in which
we treat people, establish trust, protect them
is going to be impactful beyond your reporting.
And so that's kind of just the setting of the
scene. So then, well, what do we now do? How
can you approach this work? And there are lots
of approaches, lots of information online. But
from my own experience, there are a few things
that we have done that have worked. The first
is, and none of these are in order, so not necessarily
approaching them sequentially. try to build in
time, particularly I would imagine that folks
who are in the OSINT community are like folks
in the slow journalism community or investigative
reporting in other ways, which basically means
we have got more time. We've got much more time
than folks who are working on breaking news,
sort of just chasing stories down. And so to
be honest, as an editor, I often think that we
have fewer excuses to not build in some of these
sort of like care practices into our work because
often our work is very laborious and takes time.
It takes time to go from hunch to, you know,
reporting, co -publishing, whatever our approach
is. And so really, what was our excuse to not
build into that time some steps to make sure
that the people we're working with, the people
we're reporting on feel safe, trust us, are involved.
Um, so when I think about listening, I often
think about that because, um, we tend to have
a very hierarchical view of expertise, right?
So it's often people who have, um, degrees of
some sort to have researched a subject that we
consider experts and that the people who tell
us our stories oftentimes let's talk about whether
it's, you know, gender -based violence or just
victims. I would like to argue, and I'm not the
first to do so, that experiencing gender -based
violence makes you an expert in lots of things
that have to do with gender -based violence.
And so considering those people, considering
experience as a form of expertise, the two are
not equivalent, but it is a form of expertise.
So it changes how you think about your characters
and the people who talk to you. They're just
not there solely for the color, right? They're
not just there solely for the kind of like, bringing
to life the data, bringing to life the information
that you have, they might be able to inform your
reporting in many more ways if given the opportunity
to do so. And so that's why one of my thoughts
is actually, if ambitious, if you have a newsroom
or an editor or a time to do so, are there ways
in which you can imagine collaborating with people
you are reporting on so that they're not just
characters in your story but actually might share
a byline with you because actually they're much
more invested in the reporting. I think this
is going to open up some questions for folks
about sort of objectivity and wonky word positionality,
perhaps. But actually, there are many instances
where that has been done, where people have gone
into prisons and have made incarcerated people
and co -reporters and stories, perhaps, you know,
from one investigation to the next, it might
not work, but it's definitely something to think
about. And again, you have time. Ask people on
a very sort of small but important point, ask
people how they self identify, whether that is
survivor or victim, whether that is you're doing
reporting on something to do with the LGBT community.
We find in our work, particularly if it is you
try and report on issues that are globalized,
that the language in one community is not the
same as the other. I can't remember what country,
but I remember we did reporting on trans people
somewhere in Latin America, and the word they
used just wouldn't be the word we would use in
the West and in English at the moment. I think
it was transvestite or may have translated as
that, which might seem very dated, but that was
the word used in that community. And so I think
in terms of making people feel safe and in terms
of making sure that you represent them in the
ways that they see themselves. It's also about
asking them what language they use, right? And
if you then need to do the work as, you know,
this is going from research to reporting now
when you're then presenting it to audiences.
If your audience are not in the community that
you reported on, it's about providing that extra
detail and saying, hey, this person chose to
refer to them as this. Right. So don't come at
me. Yes, I know that we like to think of people
as survivors, but actually this character, this
person very much sees themselves as a victim.
Right. And they and it's about honoring that
and then explaining why you have chosen to use
that language. If you're reporting, for example,
on racialized issues and you're reporting in
South Africa, there is a category of people who
are who self identify as colored. If you're in
America, that language will get you punched in
the streets. However, it's about reflecting on
the language of the people who you're reporting
on and not necessarily of the audience you're
reporting to and then acting as a bridge builder
to kind of then explain the context. Explain
the extent of visibility. So when you are at
the stage where you are now talking to people
about an investigation and you want them to consent
to be in your reporting, Is it already going
to be placed somewhere? And do they have the
full understanding of the reach of that work?
Particularly when we are dealing with people
who might not consume the media we consume, do
not take it for granted that they understand
how long their information is going to last to
live online, right, in perpetuity, or how what
the reach of that reporting is going to be and
how it might come back at them. If you are collaborating
with multiple newsrooms and their story is going
to be translated, into multiple languages. Do
they understand this? Do they understand that
it is going to be reported beyond their local
context? Sometimes maybe in it, right? Sometimes
someone might feel comfortable to talk to you
because you represent foreign media. But actually,
if you're like, we have a local co -publishing
partner or want to disseminate that journalism
locally. Do they know that that is going to be
the case? So really asking people to fully consent,
to be sure that they understand what they're
participating in, and also providing them with
multiple opportunities to change their minds.
It makes me nervous to say even now because there
have been many times when in many of the examples
that I set out at the start of this talk, we
have provided people, you know, you've got a
story, you think it can be really impactful,
it can shift the dial in some way. And the last
thing, there's a sort of knot in my stomach when
I think, oh, we have to go back to this person
and find out if they're still okay with us reporting
their story because it's often been many months
since we started on this journey. Do they still
want to talk to us? Do they still want their
story? to go out there. And there is always the
risk that they won't. But actually, if we're
trying to live our values and to do journalism
differently to how it's been traditionally done,
we just have to take that risk. And it has indeed
happened that at the 11th hour, somebody decides,
actually, I don't wish to be part of this anymore.
I don't want to be involved in your reporting,
and we have to take them out. On the instances
where we make people or invite people to be collaborators
with us, really thinking about the distribution
of power, right? So that that is not just symbolic.
but that actually they have some kind of say
is really important. It is very exceptional.
It's unusual, not the practice traditionally
in journalism that we would give somebody our
reporting to read once it's been done. And so
it's not like we go back to folks with the entire
story, but we often take back to them. their
quotes, snippets of text or the audio to make
sure that they feel comfortable. If it is accompanied
by video to make sure that they feel comfortable
with how they are seen, particularly if it is
sensitive, particularly if they run a risk of
being revealed in ways that we haven't thought
about. Again, thinking about identifying features.
It is not enough, and I'm sure this is things
you all know, to retract names. There are other
identifying characteristics of folks, particularly
in tight -knit communities, that you have to
think about in order to protect the people in
your investigation. And then finally, check when
it's safe to publish. Oftentimes, a big investigation
doesn't need a news hook, right? Because you're
not trying to ride the news wave, you're trying
to make the news yourself. So you set your own
timelines. But oftentimes there might be a reason
to go at a specific moment, not another, right?
We did, while I was still at CNN, an investigation
into how pro -democracy actors in Myanmar were
being doxed and trolled on Telegram. That required
a lot of data research to sort of go through
and to identify that It was gendered because
the ways in which women in that culture were
being targeted for being pro -democracy was very
different to how men were being targeted. It
was often sexualized. It often involved trying
to present them as promiscuous because of the
social and cultural meaning of that and not directly
related to the politics in any way. And so we
did this big investigation on it. And we looped
in the UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar to try
and increase the impact. of our investigation
and they wanted to put out a letter and so you
start to feel pressure for when to publish but
it is often important that you should go back
to the people who have been the sort of bedrock
of your reporting to ask if it is safe for them
for the story to come out now. Another example
I will give is when we were doing reporting on
I think it was in Slovenia and it was how sort
of power, I think it was the former president
and other powerful political forces were trying
to build movements online to dox specific people,
particularly women, and how they were responding
to that. And because that the main character
continues to live in the country that we're reporting
on, because the man who is being accused of harm
and mobilizing other to cause harm was still
very powerful. I don't remember if he had already
lost his... the presidency at that point. But
it was very important that we thought very carefully
about when we release that reporting so that
she could get to safety, so that she could make
sure that she deleted her social apps so that
she didn't expose herself to the vitriol that
might come online. And then for her to re -emerge
when she felt safe and really just being diligent
about, you know, the needs of the characters
in your story and how to ensure that the people
who give you so much that makes your journalism
is are able to feel sort of taken care of through
to the end. Okay, that's my sort of introductory
presentation, and I'm very happy to take questions
from any of you. Thanks, Eliza, so much. I mean,
you're speaking from your own personal experience
and best practices in your newsroom, but what
you're saying resonates with my experience completely
at various newsrooms as well, doing investigative
journalism. I can see some questions already
coming in. someone's just put this is absolutely
fascinating information. So I think a lot of
people are enjoying your tips and tricks. Thank
you. I want to say that person is not a relative
of mine. I also wanted to note that obviously,
when it comes to Bellingcat, we often don't interview
sources. We often don't actually have voices
like the Fuller Project has in their pieces.
They're not central to our work. That doesn't
mean that we aren't thinking about the human
element in our investigations as well. For example,
and this is a bit more of a different kind of
example, when you're looking at if you're monitoring
a particular far right account, for example,
and you've found out who this prolific far for
right activist is, and you're willing to possibly
reveal a little bit about about their name and
identity, you also have to think about all the
other people around them. For example, though,
they might have a wife, a girlfriend, family
members. So even when you're thinking about the
human element in your story, it's not always,
you know, there's victim or survivor in the central,
central part of your story. It's also about the
humans that are linked to whatever you are researching,
whether it's the humans behind the big data that
you've collected, or the people related directly
to the subject matter that you're talking about.
So I think it's really important that everyone
also thinks about it in these contexts when we're
talking about it as well. Going back though to
the survivor kind of testimony and speaking to
those with lived experience, I wonder if anyone
in the audience has specific examples of when
they've tried to cover something human -centric
and have struggled to find someone to speak to.
I'd love to hear your experiences in that. Eliza,
what are your first points of contact when you're
looking for a source for a story of any topic?
Yeah, that's a good question. I also just want
to chime in to what you just said, which was
which is really important. And to also think
about this phrase, right, duty of care. It's
really, really difficult. And I don't think this
is a fixed static and immutable perspective.
How do we understand our duty of care as investigators,
researchers, journalists? And when does it start
and stop? And who do we extend it to, right?
To your point about if you expose someone in
the far right, that person we can identify as
a malicious actor, what about the people around
them? My answer to that, because it can be so
murky, is to remain is to acknowledge it and
to have conversations about it, particularly
if you're going from sort of like data research
and investigation through to the reporting stage.
Really be open and if your editor doesn't start
the conversation, I think you should start the
conversation with them because we don't know
sometimes where to draw that line, right? And
what you said just made me think of this and
that there is no hard and fast rule every time,
but I think we should always kind of be prepared
when you are trying to reveal harm and when there
are people at the center of your journalism in
whatever capacity to actually ask about and think
about the duty of care, particularly if you're
the kind of one leading the work. The final thing
I'll say also related to that is I didn't speak
at all to you know, the subject of this conversation
is protecting the people in your investigation.
Those are also other researchers, other investigators
and other journalists, right? When the people
on my team who had to sort of troll through,
I'm sorry for my French, the shit that was. in
telegram groups. When we have looked at material
that's being used to dox women or other types
of violence, we also have to be mindful. Myself
as an editor, I have to think about what the
cost is to the people on my team for doing so,
right? Much in the same way as content moderators
might be exposed to harm. And so it's trying
to think about our duty of care even to other
people who we're working with and reporting on.
So to your question then about how do we identify
characters, if you have started with listening,
we are now at the Fuller Project. trying to scope
out a series around AI and gendered work. We
know that we live in societies where women's
work is different to men's work, though we know,
of course, that women were the early computer
programmers because that was seen as mind -numbing
calculations. And once computer programming and
data work became sexy, it became men's work and
not women's anymore. Somebody said to me yesterday
that women were the original computers because
they were manually doing the sort of computing
themselves. And now they're being replaced by
computers. But I digress. We're doing the series
and we're starting by organizing what we call
listening circles, where we bring together people
with lived experience as well as sort of more
academic expertise or other forms of knowledge
to basically try and ask the questions around
what should we be reporting, what's interesting
and what's not. That often reveals to us communities
of people. So somebody might suggest a really
strong idea. Hey, there is a community of garment
workers in Bangladesh who are doing X, Y, Z,
and that is a way in. Other times, And in fact,
often, reporters on my team, one of the kind
of prized characteristics of the people I hire
is how close are they to the ground in terms
of having their ear to the ground, right? How
many groups do they sort of belong to and discussions
do they follow? It's really, really hard to reverse
engineer. community belonging, right? Like you
have no contact with a group of people. And then
once the story is out, then you try and immerse
yourself. And that doesn't mean necessarily in
a very sort of rudimentary way. You can only
report on communities you belong to, but rather
that if you're interested in a subject, you are
more likely to know where to find characters
who will speak to you if you've been following
it over time. Right. And so. If you are in, I
don't know, Facebook groups or other groups where
people are discussing an issue, Discord channels
where people are discussing a subject, you're
more likely to know the people who are impacted
by that issue as a way of trying to then find
characters. There is a lot of what we would call
background research and calls that you make to
just try and find your character. We knew from
data that... in Afghanistan, the number of women
who were leaving through irregular and informal
migratory routes almost peaked, almost surpassed,
rather, the number of men for the first time
in a very long time, I think in at least 20 plus
years, which was very unusual, right, made even
more challenging by the fact that the Taliban
has banned women from traveling on their own.
So we knew from the data that women were in large
numbers trying to leave Afghanistan through informal
routes. But to be able to tell a story, we needed
to find a way in that involved human beings.
And actually, the capacity to be flexible about
how you think about who your characters can be.
So sticking with that example. Of course, the
first thing we were looking for were women who
themselves have traveled on this path. But because
they're informal, because it's undocumented,
they're not exactly announcing themselves. And
you cannot present yourself as a journalist on
that border looking for people to speak to. And
so one of the things that we did was we went
to the people who collected the research, the
IOM, the Institute of Migration, and other organizations
that were trying to service and work with migrants
to basically build relationships with them to
find out if they would broker access for us to
anyone. And that's often the ways in which we
get access, right? Brokered relationships. You
find someone who is a gatekeeper of some or in
some way, whether they are a nonprofit organization,
a charity, a membership group and you ask that
organization to broker access for you to the
people who belong to that group. Having that
gatekeeper as a trusted bridge into that community
helps. But the other way that we looked at it
was that actually if we weren't going to be able
to get women themselves who had made that journey.
could we tell the story through the lens of the
people who are at the borders, counting the undocumented
or trying to do these surveys, right? Using their
experience of reporting from the borders because,
or documenting experiences at the border, because
often there would be local hires from within
that community and that there was. a capacity
for there to be an interesting story there and
a way into what the data was showing us but not
in the most sort of linear idea. Now that was
not possible also because there were political
risks for them to speak to us in that way and
so we went back to the first approach and kept
working at it until an Afghan support organization
in Pakistan put us in touch with the three people
who then became our main characters. Yeah, as
I said in the chat, charities and stacked organizations
are your friends. They are often the protocol,
but it's important also not to cold email them
as well. You've got to give a clear reasoning
as to why you are getting in touch, what purpose
them brokering that relationship will give you
both. And I think it's important not to see that
as an extractive. relationship as well, which
it can be in times in the journalism world particularly.
And we've got quite a few questions coming through
now, so I want to make sure that we have time
for them. So I'll kick off with Sarah who asked
a specific question about something that they've
struggled with in the past. When evaluating the
risk to the person you're interviewing slash
going to publish about, I have a question about
how to understand the possible repercussions
they will face specific to their community. How
do you learn about the culture they come from
and the feelings of their community regarding
survivors of sexual violence? Of course, asking
them is important and they are the expert in
their own life, but I want to do my own due diligence
to make sure I'm reporting as best as possible.
So what would you say to that kind of situation?
Yeah. The first thing I would say is there is
a fine line we walk between doing due diligence
and being paternalistic, right? Which is not
at all what I'm suggesting, but I think it's
important to check ourselves as to how we do
that. So to speak a bit more to that, it's about
sort of when you've done your research and when
you've asked the person and then you still conclude,
hmm, I think it's, you know, actually this isn't
best for you, right? And we have to often have
conversations on my team about sort of making
sure that people maintain their sense of agency
because people who are often have suffered harm
or are oppressed in some way, their story is
the last sort of bastion of power that they have
and wanting to tell that story is about sort
of reclaiming some kind of power and exercising
that power. And so. Also worth saying, I guess,
to your question, Sarah, that it's important
to just kind of think, OK, once I have done some
research and asked them. Even if I'm uncomfortable
with the risk, that's when we then do all the
other steps that we've talked about, right? Consult
them when we're trying to publish, send them
snippets of the reporting to make sure that they
are happy with how they're presented, ask them
how they wish to identify all of these things.
So then to your question itself, I think this
is really the value in particularly if you are
investing yourself in investigative work. in
building relationships with the community before
it comes time to report, right? This is really
the difference between sort of what I would call
parachuting in or not. It's not often sort of
physically going to a community in a different
country that you don't know, but actually trying
to get under the skin of an issue if you've not
been following it closely. And I think it is
about then asking those questions of people beforehand.
Now, if you're talking about communities in the
more sort of traditional sense, right, you want
to cover gender based violence. I don't know.
I can't remember which country is it in the Pacific.
I think maybe PNG, Papua New Guinea probably
has the highest rates of gender based violence
in any place in the world. And you become fascinated
with this and you want to do a story there. Thinking
about how you navigate that culture involves
working with local journalists. I often say if
I'm working with, if I'm hiring a researcher
or an investigator who is not from the community
they're reporting on, one of the questions I
always add in the list of questions we check
off when we're commissioning a story is, how
willing are you to work collaboratively? If you're
not willing to work collaboratively and you're
working on an issue that you don't know all the
sides to, which let's be honest, for most issues,
that's most issues, then I don't want to work
with that reporter because it suggests to me
that they're not open to having the input of
other people who might enrich their journalism
or actually keep us from fucking up, you know,
because they can see blind spots that we don't.
And so thinking about who you are asking, right.
So, for example, I've worked a lot. in sub -Saharan
Africa, you can't just sort of go into a community
and ask the head of the household, the man, which
it usually is, about sexual violence. You can't
even ask the woman, often in the presence of
the man, right? So it's trying to think about
how you navigate that. And the same organizations
that brokered your access are really the first
place to start by trying to learn what you can.
Also, I would suggest reading other people's
reporting because sometimes and not always as
a sort of example of best practice, but what
not to do. So I would look at stories sometimes.
I've done a lot of sort of teaching journalism
students about sort of. questions around power
and agency. And we will look at the stories by
some high flying New York Times reporter. And
we will count the people who were quoted in the
story for sharing their expertise and who is
quoted for just sharing their pain and their
experience. And, you know, usually if all the
black and brown people have bad or the women
have. terrible things happen to them and then
everyone else then puts that experience in context.
I also think that there is a problem there because,
of course, as I said at the start, there are
other people who can inform the reporting. So
I would read widely and weirdly. I would speak
to the NGO, the charity or the whoever that has
brokered you access. I would ask people, but
I would also think about the settings in which
we ask them to make sure that you are mindful.
And I would pair up with a local journalist and
I would share bylines or credits with them beyond
sort of fixers, because really those people are
sometimes the sort of difference between whether
what we just have is data or whether we have
a human. centric stories, it's often a fixer.
A local journalist who stands in that gap and
sort of like elevating them to a role of core
reporting is just just use. If you have any other
questions on gender based violence, particularly
in terms of the survivor approach, we will also
have Leila Hussain coming in in a couple of weeks
time who has lived experience of FGM and works
as a therapist who will be coming in to chat
about how you might know how from the survivor's
point of view what it's like to be approached
by journalists and researchers and how best to
kind of approach those situations. But we have
kind of stumbled on the issue of informed consent
and this kind of ties into Stephanie's question
that she asked. Stephanie asked what do you do
when your victim or the person the people that
you're reporting on are children? Have you got
any experience of working with child sources
and what are the kind of things that you have
to keep in mind when doing work with children?
The Afghan family that we were talking about
were two sisters and a brother and two of them
were minors. In that context, and this is where
I'm really grateful for newsrooms that, you know,
it might be a pain in the ass when you're going
through all the sort of like editing and verification
processes, but really important when you're trying
to protect people. And we had a long discussion
because there was no adult to ask for consent
to be able to speak to the kids, right? They
had left on their own with finance and the blessing
of their parents to try and get to safety and
to make a better life for themselves in Pakistan,
which meant that the only people that we had
direct access to was them. And so in that scenario,
because of the ages involved, it was deemed that
they can represent themselves. And so we were
able to go ahead. But in other instances, I think
we were looking at questions around child pornography
in the Philippines. As a general rule, we have
generally not done stories where we would need
to work with child sources just because of, I
think, some of the sensitivities around doing
the kinds of due diligence and, you know, as
I said at the start, like they're trying to get
the receipts. So to substantiate the claims of
a child and oftentimes thinking about who the
trusted adult is, who you can go to, I think
that is a very difficult situation. And I think
particularly in contexts where you don't have
protective services, where you don't have institutions
that are there. with the child protection and
child safety in mind. We have often gone through
third parties, so not so much to get the views
of children in situations where they've been
harmed. I worked on, my God, it took us nearly
a year, on a collaborative project that we did
with an NGO to basically find the experiences
of girls using the internet and using their phones.
And of course, even trying to get consent from
girls in lots of different countries, because
this is the other thing that we want to avoid.
You want to avoid creating archetypes, right?
You want to avoid, if you speak to one person,
one child or one woman or one whoever's experience
of an issue doesn't then represent the entire
community of people who have had that experience.
And so it is, again, very difficult trying to
think about how do you presents the one character
who's willing to talk to you without trying to
extrapolate from that, the lived experience of
lots of people. And so with this investigation,
we tried to get the views of young women, so
teenagers, in lots of different parts of the
world. We couldn't figure out how to negotiate
that access without working with an NGO that
worked across all of those cultures and those
communities rather, and already had a program
in place. And so what we did was then craft a
specific questionnaire with the NGO to ask of
the young women questions that we were editorially,
journalistically interested in. which is in part
why it took so long, because it wasn't just survey
results that would come from the types of things
that the NGO usually surveyed them to find out.
And so going through the NGO who has done all
the due diligence in the community, who is known,
who has gotten the consent of all the parents,
and then putting our questions, crafting with
them the types of questions to ask. There was
another time we were working on doing something
similar for women who had had postpartum depression
and working with an NGO to think about the questions
we ask, right? So again, the question of language.
So for example, those of us who are kind of like
chronically obsessively online might be thinking
about sort of like trauma and postpartum depression,
but in other contexts, people are not using that
language when a woman might have. you know, postpartum,
she might be talking about just being sad or
being tired. And so working with clinicians in
the country where the where we were trying to
speak to people to find out what is the language
they use, because just asking someone, have you
experienced postpartum depression isn't going
to get the answer because it is the wrong question.
So really, I yeah. To be succinct specifically
on children. You know, we have largely avoided
situations where we've had to go to. Well, they've
not they've not often come up or we've had to
go directly to kids because of what it is to
navigate working with minors and trying to get
consent and have often instead opted for situations
where we can go through sort of broker trusted
networks to be able to solicit and get the views
of young people. Yeah, thanks for that. I used
to work for an organization that did speak to
younger people and filmed younger people as well
on their lived experience. So we covered subjects
from FGM to, you know, businesses that young
people had set up as well. And even to cover
that from from the basic level, we had to have
several processes that happened from contacting
them originally on social media where you know,
a lot of young people are posting, whether people
like it or not. And then going through different
layers of guardianship and permissions and video
interviews prior to the filmed video interview
and making sure that everything, it was a huge
process to go into a one two minute video that
ended up on social media. So when you're entering
in discussions, when it comes to child sources,
you also have to think about the lengthy process
that comes with that as well and how much time
you have to invest in that can be really, really
powerful when you pull it off. But it's really
important to make sure that they have informed
consent and they know that this could be a lasting
thing that could impact them in the future particularly.
OK, I want to get to more and more questions
because we are running out of time. So as if
I'll actually ask something related to this.
I'm curious on the protection angle. What best
practices does Eliza recommend if it does get
to the point of potential recorded interviews
with sources? One thing I've noticed a lot of
people go to lengths to blur things like faces,
but leave backgrounds visible, for example. So
what kind of protections do you put in place
when you're videoing sources? Yeah, that's a
great question. So it's thinking about identifiable
locations. I mean, of course, folks who work
on sort of like open source research, particularly
if it's dealing with sort of geographical information
and sort of like topography and thinking about
sort of look. Locations probably think a lot
about this much more so than sort of like other
journalists, just features, reporters, et cetera.
But really thinking about identifying features,
thinking about also things like birthmarks. So
oftentimes when we have tried to capture videos
and we can't show a face, you might want to get
a sense because again, that is able to stir emotion
and make a connection with the viewer by just,
you know, you're hearing a voice and you're seeing
someone rubbing their hands together. If they
have distinguishing features, I have dot tattoos
on each of my fingers. Anybody who sees my hands
will know that it is me. Maybe and so just thinking
about stuff like that. So moving them out of
their their their location Oftentimes actually
when you're also going in particularly if you're
doing video interviews And there is nothing subtle
about it, right? And there are ways to make it
more subtle, but it is much more visible than
just going into a community with a notepad and
a recorder or your phone and going into someone's
home. Especially if you're reporting on tight
-knit communities, anyone who is coming into
that situation is going to be a very visible
outsider. And so thinking about what you then
do when you've got a camera with you and where
you interview this person and where you record.
There are many occasions where we've also had
to sort of obscure someone's voice or do voiceovers
because just running the risk of somebody being
identified also by their voice. So yes, think
about where you take them. Oftentimes when you're
thinking about duty of care, it is often, you
know, sometimes it's not the best thing to take
people out of their communities. And, you know,
let's say you book, I don't know, a hotel and
you think, oh, this is nice. And you're going
to put out a spread or something to try and make
them feel comfortable. But oftentimes taking
people out of their communities into a different
area. might make them less comfortable but at
the same time recording in their community might
require you to be a bit more sort of like subtle
in terms of how you approach that and mindful
not just of their face but of other distinguishing
features including the locations around them.
Great tips. I actually was just writing in the
chat that the BBC I used to hate having to go
in with the massive camera and the boom mic when
you're trying to get a sensitive story out of
someone and you're coming in with this huge camera
like this and saying, please tell me your story.
You just see people kind of hide away. It's quite
difficult. It's a quite difficult thing to have
to have to do when you're working in broadcast
newsrooms, for example. Soto Knife says even
the old fashioned notebook. can be distracting.
Absolutely. Absolutely. You're no longer making
eye contact. You're now writing down. But just
to think about whatever approach, particularly
if you're not recording. make sure that your
notes can be legible. There have been times when
we have been co -publishing with another newsroom
and they have wanted to see the reporter's notes
as part of their fact -checking. So just think
about that, right? In the ways in which you're
organizing your data and your evidence when you're
getting to the step where you're being sort of
like, where the fact -checking is being done,
make sure that someone can verify the things
that you have written down, someone has said.
And it's not just in some, you know, your own
kind of version of shorthand or whatever it is.
Because then it then the last thing you want
to do when you're collecting sensitive information
is go back to a character and say, I'm sorry,
can I get this again? Yeah, Michael, my colleague
is also put in the chat and in general on sensitive
subjects with marginalized individuals and communities.
I basically insisted on interviews and previous
work being done in the person's native tongue
or when they feel most comfortable speaking with
a translator or fix it, even when they can communicate
with me in English, which is another. I think
really good points. And we had a question earlier
about the risks of being an open source researcher
when you're kind of removed from the topic and
when you're looking at it kind of through a lens.
I'm interested in your perspective when it comes
to using imagery or videos of individuals in
a traumatic setting. So for example, your team
often cover labor abuses like your coverage of
bad working conditions and sexual harassment
at diamond sellers debiers. If a video or image
appeared on your desk depicting abuses relevant
to your story, how would you treat that video
or image in order to be confident in the ability
to publish it slash protecting those featured
in your story? Would you reach out for consent?
What kind of precautions would you put into place?
Because that's a realistic example of something
that many people in the audience would be encountering
every day. And so this is a question of when
you don't know the provenance of that video as
opposed to you've asked someone to record a video,
let's say. Exactly, exactly. For example, you've
come across the video on social media, but it
depicts something in the story that you're already
writing. that's relevant to your case. Well,
I think this is actually an example where I feel
like this community might have many more examples
of best practice than the rest of us do, right,
in sort of like source verification. Because
of course, there are ways, you know, whether
it's looking at the metadata, trying to figure
out when the video was taken, trying to understand
who shared it. I'm also I'm interested, oftentimes,
thinking about the motivations of the people
who shared it. We've often had to have conversations
about why could somebody have sent this to us?
What might they want? sort of what the might
ulterior motives be as we were talking about
that sort of networked effect, right. But yes,
I think that, you know, I think we would definitely
particularly now Fuller, the Fuller project,
while we're moving towards video is not necessarily
a newsroom that has traditionally used a lot
of video. And I'm thinking of in previous jobs,
right, because there is no doubt that the Internet
is an increasingly sort of like video led space.
And so the appeal. if a video of harms that was
appearing in my story landed on my desk of using
it. The question of informed consent of the people
in the video. I think it really depends on the
access. If you have already established access,
let's say you're working on, as you've said,
harms in a factory and you've already reported
your story or you're reporting your story, that
means you have access to the community or maybe
it is the labor rights group or the women's group
that they belong to or whatever it is. And it's
just also about checking with them, again, referring
back to my point about. asking your characters
or your sources to actually be co -reporters
in some ways and bringing them into this and
trying to find out what their thoughts of that
content is, as well as the sort of due diligence
we would do to make sure that the video indeed
isn't doctored in any way, it shows what it shows,
the timeline is accurate. What would you add
to that as things that you would like to see
done before that video could be used? Yeah, I
think you've covered quite a few points. I think
in some cases you might even want to consider
blurring those features if you cannot find their
identity. I think some people often may not think
about the individuals depicted as much as they
should, so making sure that if you can't verify
the identity of those featured and make sure
that they are happy to be broadcast to the world,
it's quite important to make sure that you're
not. kind of showcasing their face in such a
traumatic event without permission. And I think
this is what, again, Dr. Lezkovic went into quite
a bit in our discussion last. I know we're running
out of time, but I have one more question and
I hope that's OK. I wanted to bring this up because
it's something that I myself struggled with when
I was first reporter. And I think if you are
new to interviews, it's something that would
be difficult when first working with sources.
And that is when a source makes a claim. So,
for example, if an individual that you've built
up trust for has made a substantial claim within
their testimony, how do you approach that when
you need to kind of back up a statement with
data? How do you navigate that relationship?
Because that's quite a difficult thing to do.
And I know from experience that it takes often
years for reports to get into the kind of practice
to be able to kind of have those difficult conversations
with sources. So what's your best practices in
your newsroom for that thing? And then we'll
wrap up so everyone can enjoy that evening. Absolutely.
So I think this just actually it's foundational,
right? It goes back to you establishing who you
are and what you do and how you do it. I think
a lot of people who particularly sort of like
traditional journalists assume that everybody,
the public understands what journalists do and
how they do it. And this is a completely incorrect
assumption. Right. And so it is important once
you are establishing a relationship with someone
before you even sit down for the formal interview
to really situate yourself and to say, this is
what I'm doing. If I, you know, if we got to
the place where you were telling me your story
on record, I will need to ask you. you know,
to think about what kinds of ways in which you
can verify it. I often say to the reporters,
build some sympathy with your source by telling
them how laborious the editing process is, right?
Like get them to feel for you because you're
like, you know, make me the editor seem like
an asshole because like, oh my God, my editor
is going to need. to see this, this, this, and
this, so that the person has some sense of both
the time and the sort of breadth of evidence
that they will need to show, right? Because even
when there is a sense of there is a... we also
have a duty of care to the people we're accusing
of wrongdoing. So if we cannot verify the claims,
if we cannot get a right to response, if we cannot
show any sort of data, we did an investigation
which was about women getting pregnant from having
taken contraceptive pills that were faulty. We
needed to confirm that these women were in fact
indeed on the contraception that they said they
were on. And so we could not work with the characters
who had no sorts of proofs. We had to work with
those who had their medical prescription, who
maybe even still had the packet of the drugs.
And then we took that picture, actually, and
included it in the reporting to show people what
the pills she was taking looked like. So my best
practice for this is be granular and absolutely
clear before someone enters into a relationship
with you where they have committed to telling
you their story because you have made them some
promise. that it will be published or it will
be shown. It's for them to understand what it
will take to get from you speaking to them to
the story going out. And then they become a sort
of co -conspirator with you, trying to find these
files, trying to get this evidence as opposed
to you promising them that all they will need
to do is tell their story and then they will
never have to speak to you again. That's false
because you're going to have to, you know, need
to corroborate the story. Absolutely, and obviously
communicate that all with your editors as well.
If there is a problem, for example, if a migrant
that you're speaking to doesn't have the paperwork
that you need to tell the story, communicate
that with your editor early on and problem solve
it rather than kind of keeping it to yourself,
trying to do the interview and then it becoming
a problem later on. Eliza, thank you so much.
It's been fascinating to speak. with you and
thank you to everyone who's sat in the audience
and listened and asked questions. We're going
to continue this series on looking into these
kinds of topics and ways to keep survivors and
those at the centre of your stories protected.
Sarah has mentioned in the chat as well. Before
we all disperse, I wanted to point out that the
Muro code is going through an update with guidance
for open source research and the pilot is available
till the end of June. So you can check that out
at the Gender -Based Violence Massage and New
Channel. Sarah's going through it. She's going
to put some notes on there asking for feedback.
So please have a look at that in your spare time.
Thank you, everybody, for listening and thank
you, Eliza, again for coming. Thank you for having
me. Bye, everyone. Thanks for coming. Bye. Thank
you, everyone. Thank you for listening to the
stage talk. If you'd like to catch a stage talk
live where you can ask the guest questions, join
the Bellingcat Discord server by visiting www
.discord .gg slash Bellingcat. The music you've
heard is titled Dawn by Newer Self and is courtesy
of Artlist.