This lesson plan teaches journalists and media students how to report on people who have experienced trauma without causing them further harm.
It’s based on the article Avoiding retraumatisation in journalism by Ethiopian journalist and educator Zelalem Tesfaye Worku, which we recommend trainers read before adapting this lesson plan for your own needs.
Introduction
This training day is designed to help reporters understand what retraumatisation is and how everyday reporting practices can cause it. It moves from the basic theory of how trauma returns, through a real case study from a conflict zone, to the practical skills of seeking informed consent, interviewing with care and deciding what to publish. The aim throughout is to protect survivors while still telling the stories that deserve to be told.
A note for trainers. The article describes the aftermath of conflict, including sexual violence against a child. Warn participants about the content before the day begins. Handle the case study without graphic detail, and do not ask anyone to read out the most distressing passages. Let participants step out of any session without explanation. Some people in the room may have their own experience of trauma, so have details of local support services to hand and point participants to the MHM list of organisations offering trauma support for journalists. Use only fictional, non-graphic scenarios in role-plays.
Sessions timetable
- 09:00–10:00 – Session 1: What retraumatisation means
- Aims: To understand how trauma returns and how journalists can trigger it without meaning to.
- Presentation: Define retraumatisation as what happens when reporting practices cause survivors to relive their experiences, triggering distress and undermining recovery. Explain that trauma does not stay in the past. A question, a sound, a place or a photograph can make memories feel as though the event is happening again. A person may become tearful, frightened or numb, go quiet or stop speaking, or struggle to sleep or eat in the following days.
- Activity: In groups, participants list the ways a journalist can trigger retraumatisation, and sort them into harm during the interview and harm afterwards. Draw out examples such as asking for the worst moment in detail, asking someone to repeat their story for a second reporter or a camera, and pressing for an answer when someone is clearly distressed. Afterwards, harm can come from seeing a face or name in print or reading comments from strangers.
- Discussion: Why is a survivor’s distress not a sign that an interview went well? How can retraumatisation damage recovery and make people less willing to trust anyone with their story again?
- 10:00–11:00 – Session 2: A village after the fighting
- Aims: To analyse a real case and identify the risks a journalist’s arrival can create.
- Presentation: Summarise Zelalem’s account. Two days after intense fighting in the Bugna District of Ethiopia, he visited a village with a group of foreign journalists. Houses were abandoned and the roads deserted. The men had fled, and only women, older people and children remained. Describe the two people the journalists met without graphic detail: a woman whose husband, an elderly priest, had been killed and who had no community support to help her grieve, and a child who had survived sexual violence and was hiding at home because of the stigma. Stress that survivors may need care and protection before they need an audience.
- Activity: In groups, participants use a short, non-graphic summary of the case to identify who is vulnerable, what risks the arrival of journalists creates, and what each person needs before anyone asks for a story. Each group reports back with three points.
- Discussion: Zelalem notes that a journalist’s arrival in such a community is not a neutral event. What does that mean in practice? How do isolation and stigma make the harm worse?
- 11:00–11:15 – Break
- 11:15–12:45 – Session 3: Consent and dignity
- Aims: To understand the difference between willingness and informed consent, and to protect identity and dignity.
- Presentation: Explain what happened next in the village. Because the journalists arrived with an international group, residents hoped they could help and were eager to share their experiences. The child’s sister-in-law repeatedly encouraged the team to photograph her. That consent was not informed. It came from a relative hoping publicity would bring help, and neither of them could see the lifelong consequences. Publishing the child’s identity and photograph could have exposed her to stigma, violated her dignity and forced her to relive her trauma. Make the point that willingness to be interviewed or photographed is not the same as informed consent, especially when the person is desperate, speaking for someone else or unable to foresee the outcome. Not every story needs a face.
- Activity: Trainers prepare five short fictional scenario cards. In groups, participants decide for each one whether to interview, whether to photograph, and whether to name or anonymise the person, and they justify their choices. They then practise explaining in plain language, in one minute, how the material would be used and what could follow publication.
- Discussion: What does a person need to understand before they can give informed consent? How should a journalist respond when a relative offers consent on behalf of someone vulnerable? What do you lose by leaving out a face, and what do you protect?
- 12:45–13:45 – Lunch
- 13:45–15:00 – Session 4: Interviewing with care
- Aims: To apply trauma-sensitive practice to an interview.
- Presentation: Explain that survivors often need to feel safe, to keep some control over what happens to them and to be believed. An interview that takes control away can undo progress. The trauma-sensitive approach is to let the person set the pace, explain clearly how the material will be used, and make it easy for them to pause, decline a question or stop altogether. Warn against interviewing someone immediately after the event, asking them to repeat their account, and pressing for an answer when they are distressed. Refer participants to the MHM guide How to interview trauma survivors.
- Activity: Role-play in pairs using a fictional, non-graphic scenario, such as a resident whose home was destroyed in an attack. The reporter has ten minutes to agree how the material will be used, let the interviewee set the pace and offer pauses. The interviewee signals distress at an agreed point, and the reporter must respond. Anyone can stop at any time. Observers note what the reporter did well and what could cause harm. Swap roles if time allows.
- Discussion: How did it feel to be on the receiving end of the questions? What did the reporter do when distress appeared? How should an interview end so that the person leaves feeling safe?
- 15:00–15:15 – Break
- 15:15–16:15 – Session 5: Deciding what to publish
- Aims: To make careful decisions about identifying details, photographs and the period after publication.
- Presentation: Remind participants that harm does not end when the interview does. Zelalem asks what might have happened if the journalists had no training: interviewing the child straight after the event, asking her to recount painful memories repeatedly, photographing her without thinking about the future, or publishing details that make her easy to identify. None of those actions is meant to cause harm, yet each can retraumatise. The journalists present chose not to photograph the child or reveal identifying details. Discuss how to tell a strong story without a face.
- Activity: Trainers supply a short fictional draft report that includes identifying details and a photograph caption. Participants edit it to protect the people in it while keeping the story strong. They then write a two-line note for an editor explaining what was removed and why.
- Discussion: Does removing identifying details weaken a story, or can it make it stronger? How can you prepare someone for reactions after publication, including comments from strangers?
- 16:15–17:00 – Session 6: The public’s right to know and the survivor’s right to dignity
- Aims: To weigh the public interest against a survivor’s right to dignity, privacy and safety, and to agree practical commitments.
- Presentation: Explain Zelalem’s conclusion. Journalism should never become another source of suffering, and conflict reporting needs empathy, ethical judgement and an understanding of trauma as well as courage. Some stories deserve to be told, but not in ways that deepen the wounds of people who have already suffered. Ethical practice protects both the journalist and the people whose stories they tell. Point participants to the MHM material on journalism, trauma and stress.
- Activity: Individually, participants write five personal commitments for working with survivors. In pairs they compare them, and the whole group then agrees a short set of guidelines to take back to their newsrooms.
- Discussion: Which commitment will be hardest to keep under deadline pressure? How would you respond to an editor or colleague who wants the emotional interview or the powerful picture?
Assignment
Find a published report about people who have experienced trauma, such as conflict, violence or disaster. Assess it against the lesson: are people identifiable, is there evidence of informed consent, does the report need a face, and what risks of retraumatisation does it create? Write a 400-word assessment with recommendations, and rewrite the introduction of the report to reduce the risk of harm. Do not contact survivors for this assignment.
Materials needed
- Notebooks and pens.
- Handouts of the MHM article by Zelalem Tesfaye Worku.
- A short, non-graphic summary of the village case study for Session 2.
- Five fictional scenario cards for Session 3.
- Fictional role cards for the Session 4 role-play.
- A short fictional draft report with identifying details for Session 5.
- Whiteboard or flip chart for brainstorming.
- Details of local support services for participants who need them.
Assessment
- Participation: Respectful engagement in the discussions and role-play.
- Performance: Ability to recognise the risks of retraumatisation and apply trauma-sensitive practice in an interview.
- Ethical judgement: Decisions on consent, identification and publication that are justified and protect the dignity of the people involved.
Summary
This lesson plan gives participants a practical, ethical approach to reporting on trauma. By moving from understanding how trauma returns to consent, interviewing and publishing with care, they learn that protecting a survivor can matter more than getting a powerful picture or an emotional interview. Good intentions are not enough. Knowing what trauma does to people helps journalists avoid harm they never meant to cause.
