A journalist’s guide to interviewing trafficking survivors

Finally, you need to teach them how to behave in front of journalists. Journalists are always working. They'll turn on the microphone, you talk, they turn it off, and then say: ‘oh, let me ask you about this other thing.' Then they start getting more information out of you. Survivors should know that anything they say may end up in the story. I also explain some technical things: to look the interviewer in the eyes because this has a calming effect; to speak clearly and with short sentences that can't be edited; and that they have the right to stop at any time.

I try, whenever possible, to be in the room during the interview. It's helpful for the client to have a familiar face nearby. It also means I can intervene if anything goes wrong. For example, once I went with a client to a TV station. She had a unique hairstyle, to the extent that it could be used to identify her. I noticed this, so I stepped in and said the interview can't start until they find a way to hide her hair. They found a hoodie and she put it on.

I also try to see the final product before it comes out, but it doesn't always work. If it's a written interview, I might receive the draft. But if it's a TV programme, it's very rare to see the footage in advance.

BG: In your opinion, what does ethical representation of trafficking stories look like?

KK: There's a balance to strike between the specific details of a survivor's story and the overall message. What's the story about? And why does it need to be told? There needs to be a good reason. Simply talking about trafficking because it's Anti-Trafficking Day is, I think, pointless.

I got so annoyed at an event last year, in which several organisations met to discuss the weak institutional cooperation on trafficking. This is not news. But because it's fashionable now, they had brought a client to tell her story to the participants. Who needs this? It was a completely unnecessary waste of her time.

It makes sense to bring a survivor who's well prepared to a large conference. For example, in 2018 there were protests in Bulgaria against the Istanbul Convention [The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence]. Conservative groups thought the convention was based on ‘gender ideology', would ‘introduce a third gender', and so on. One of our clients attended a high-level conference, and as the mob outside raved she told the 150 attendees about the horrors of the domestic violence she had lived through. This was meaningful, even if Bulgaria ultimately didn't ratify the convention. It conveyed the message, ‘you're talking nonsense about the convention and here is a person who would've benefitted from it'.

This is ethical representation. The client telling her story needs to serve a purpose, to be used for something meaningful and to add value.

We have a project right now to train survivors to advocate around gender-based violence. We've worked with three women so far, two of whom have experiences that fall outside of Bulgaria's definition of domestic violence: abuse by a partner without co-habitation, and abuse within a same-sex couple. Their experiences offered a good opportunity for awareness raising around unrecognised forms of domestic violence, so we invited them to tell their stories at a police training.

They were well prepared, and they left the officers just speechless. These were women from their communities. And the officers were hearing the stories not in a police station – where they must quickly decide what course of action to take – but in a relaxed environment where they could process the women's emotions. The women were also relaxed and not desperately trying to get the officers' attention, but just talking about their experiences. It was extremely effective. This is what I consider meaningful participation.

As for the media, sometimes a survivor gives a 20-minute interview, only to have it end up as part of a short news segment. This often happens when illustrating ‘big news' – for example, that new legislation was introduced in parliament. This can be very disappointing for survivors and I discourage their participation in such reports. Other formats can be more rewarding. Morning talk shows, for example, allow for an in-depth exploration of their experiences and give audiences more opportunities to engage. It can make a huge difference. This is much more ethical representation from the survivor's perspective.

BG: What is the difference between a survivor telling her own story and a social worker doing so?

KK: Some survivors, due to trauma or other issues, are not very articulate. Professionals can sometimes be more effective because they can speak about the experiences of many survivors and introduce more nuance.

But first-person stories are much more effective on an emotional level. There are survivors who are very charismatic and have an amazing presence on camera or on a podium. No one can beat this.

This interview was translated from Bulgarian by Borislav Gerasimov.