 Felly, mae'n defnyddio i chi wedi'i ei wneud y wneud hynny. Welcom i y ffordd y Gweithreifftrwyddiant Cymru, yn gweithio'r cyfnodd y wneud am gweithreifftrwyddiant Cymru ar y ffordd y lles. Yn James Cow, y co-director yw'r Gweithreifftrwyddiant Cymru, heddiw i Fflynedd London yw Professor Rachel Kerr. It's a great pleasure today to welcome you to help us welcome back. Tiana Stevens. Tiana is an alumna of this parish. She did the ma, I don't remember how long ago, so we won't embarrass anybody with more accurate memories. mae wedi'i gweithio am y gorffordd yn yng Nghymru, a mae'r gweithio i'r gweithio ar y cyfnodio ar y cyfnodio ymlaen. Mae'r gweithio ar gyfer o'r awrachol cyhoedd yn Hesaf, a'r methu a Llywodraeth, a'r methu a Llywodraeth, a'r gweithio ar gyfer o'r gweithio ar y gweithio ar bosnia ac atsegofina. That's become the focus of her work, and it's the focus, obviously, of the talk today. She's been teaching in media and communication at the University of Sydney, but she's finally, after many years of working, also completing her PhD presently in the final stages of the University of Queensland, yng nghymru ond yn ymddi o'r prifael hynodllach o'r mynd i yn ymddi. Ychydig i'r byw yr cyfan yn ei ddweud hynny yno, yn ymddi o'r pethol, a'r mynd i'r mynd i'r mynd i'r pethoedd hynny, yn ymddi o'r mynd i'r mynd i'r mynd i'r pethoedd hynny, yn yr ond i'r byw, i'r siwr. Ymddi o'r byw. Mae argymlu mewn bozniad yn ymddi o'r byw mewn bozniad i'r byw.شر that involves questioning the work in which journalists approach matters, but I think, also, the way in which all of us approach these issues, witnessing what happens to victims and the ways in which maybe victims have perhaps continually continued to be victims. To revisit their experiences in different ways. Tiania, are you ready to go? Dr lighthousell AD I'll look to me for this greatly andhraeol me coldver to Felly mae'n gweithio y cwestiynau a gweithio yng Nghymru yn ysgrifennu yng Nghymru yn ysgrifennu yng Nghymru. Thank you James and Rachel and everyone else for having me back to King's. It's a bit strange for me to be back, to be doing this, but it's an honour to be back in my old stomping ground even though we're on Zoom. It's a shame it's not face to face. I'm going to start this presentation by looking at an image, this image you can see on the screen and then looking at a few of the case studies that a few participants that I interviewed in Bosnia who were in concentration camps. But first of all, I think James has already spelled out my background so I don't need to go into any of that anymore so I'll just get started. So, as James said, I'm currently almost finished about to submit my PhD after quite a long stint of trying to get it completed and changing my focus from reconciliation in Bosnia of concentration camps. Survivors to humanitarian journalism, which was fitted more of my background, and it's been a long journey to get to humanitarian journalism and sort of the ethics of how we actually approach these survivors and how we how we interview. So, yes, so an important part of this thesis looks on my thesis looks at journalistic representations and misrepresentations of male survivors of atrocity. So my journalism back my journalism past so I'm bringing together my journalism past my scholarly training and increasing sensitivity to humanitarian journalism issues. This particular photo was taken this photo here of the coffins and the people surrounding the coffins were taken. It was taken in 2018 in Shrebrinica and now Shrebrinica was where over 8,000 men and boys were rounded up onto buses and taken away and killed and many of them have now been not all of them have been found in mass graves around Bosnia. So this image was taken and it wasn't just the interviews that I did with the men of the male survivors, male wisdom survivors of concentration camps in Bosnia that drove me to humanitarian journalism. It was actually this image that I took it was just a very, you know, obviously not a professional photo when I was there. My focus was not Shrebrinica and I didn't actually want to go. But I was invited to go along and when I got there I found myself in the middle of this commemoration where the bodies were brought from the foot that we found the following year from around Bosnia who were killed in in Shrebrinica. So I found myself there that day and started questioning what these journalists were actually doing, these photographers and all the journalists that were there. And that was my key moment where I knew that I guess my future was in humanitarian journalism, my research was in humanitarian journalism. And I just questioned what the process of this was and and whether or not it was actually ethical to be standing over somebody an old woman that I saw and taking photos and interviewing them over a coffin. So this is one of this is the image that is one of the reasons why humanitarian has come to be my central research focus. And also the tension between the idea and practice of humanitarian journalism and regular event driven, deadline driven, journalist practice. Diania. Yes. Forgive my interrupting. Should we be able to see the image? Yeah, can you not see it? Oh God, I'm so sorry. Sorry, I've got so caught up in everything. I just wanted to. No, that's okay. That's my fault. I can understand what you might not be showing it. That's right. I'm just going to share the screen with you. Sorry. That's my fault there. Can you see that now? Yep. Thank you. Sorry. Absolutely. Apologies. I just was chatting away there. Okay. So let me move this over. I've just got a double screen. Okay. So yeah. So this image is one of the reasons why humanitarian journalism has become my central focus. And again, you can see it's really difficult to see here, but there is a photographer or a cameraman who is actually kneeling over one of the coffins. And sorry, just bear with me. In the red, if you can see the red circle there, he's kneeling over the coffin and there's an old lady that he is interviewing. So this started to make me think about, again, humanitarian journalism and what the issues with humanitarian journalism are. So some observations. Sorry. For some reason, my PowerPoint has just gone a bit funny. Right there we go. So I'll start with some definitions of humanitarian journalism that I found in my research. The first one is Bunscot and Wright. Bunscot and Wright offer a general definition of humanitarian journalism, namely the production and distribution of factual accounts of crises, events and issues relating to human welfare. So I just don't know why. Sorry. Why? There we go. They distinguish two different approaches to this general conception of journalistic activity. There are two. One, humanitarian journalism as a subset of traditional journalism in which one reports factual accounts relating to humanitarian issues. And two, humanitarian journalism as a subset of the tradition of humanitarianism, meaning such journalism aims to alleviate suffering and improve human welfare. The key to the second approach is that of action and intent on the part of the journalist. The intent is to help to ease the suffering of those one reports upon. This is journalism as a tool for direct positive intervention in the world, rather than a mere factual reporting on the state of it. As Bunson colleagues point out, this second approach places humanitarian journalism under the broad umbrella of advocacy journalism that includes movements such as peace journalism and solutions journalism. Journalism that aims to improve to progress social well-being. And then we have Downman and Ubizari, who wrote a book in a published book in 2017 on this topic. So Downman and Ubizari argue that humanitarian journalism for the most part is based on good intentions, but sometimes good intentions don't translate into good practice. While working against a backdrop of diversity, vulnerability and complexity, Downman and Ubizari suggest reporters are burdened with a great responsibility to report fairly and accurately and with care when too often they are untrained in the complexity of humanitarian journalism. They further suggest that the lack of knowledge can have a catastrophic impact on a survivor's well-being and in the worst case can lead to the media inflicting their own trauma on those affected by human rights abuses. As such, humanitarian journalism is not merely a focus on humanitarian issues, but a practice in support of them. Now, Downman and Ubizari, I say that they have an objective view there. There is a focus on human suffering and problems, but they also look at the traditional objective journalism practices. However, in Bunce, we see more of a focus on advocacy, which can be very political and partisan and can become very subjective. It can look really biased and more like political advocacy. Journalists are meant to be objective recorders and reflectors of facts, like a mirror. We reflect back the information. It's problematic not only for journalists but those who are being represented. Consecretly, I have two questions. Consecretly, I have two questions. If, per Bunce, humanitarian journalism draws its practitioners towards a so-called advocacy journalism, does this undermine the credibility of such work as journalism? If we are inclined to consider humanitarian journalism as a good thing, whether we lean towards advocacy journalism or not, still might humanitarian journalism often do more harm than good. My definition, taken from both Downman and Ubizari and Bunce and colleagues, is the pursuit, the production and distribution of factual accounts of crises, events and issues relating to human welfare with the aim of alleviating suffering and improving human welfare. This is my attempt on one hand to retain the objective mirror so that we reflect information while also recognising on the other hand the positive social good that journalism and journalists can do. So to develop the responses to my two key questions, I now turn to the case of Bosnia, the challenge of humanitarian reporting. Journalists bear witness to the horrific acts of which human beings are capable and the remarkable strength we possess in face of such events. Reporting such things is a crucial way that we learn more about both our positive and negative tendencies. Journalism practice possesses an unavoidable ethical dimension in the case of war, disaster and similar issues. This sense is and should be even more pronounced. Journalism practice is ethical, not simply due to its role as a witness to human strength and weakness, but I claim also due to the case with which journalism is capable of inflicting damage on those it represents. This is a difficult issue for journalists to face. So the case of Bosnia. Now some of my, I'm going to look at three case studies in particular. Three men that I interviewed while I was in Bosnia, particularly 2015 and 2017 and 18. And these three case studies have been represented, two have been represented in the press. Both have come to, both of these men have come to feel that the lives have been damaged by this representation. But in the wider journalistic circles, these two representations are often referred to as examples of humanitarian journalism, although this can be problematic. The third participant in my study wants to be represented. He wants his voice heard, but he feels he's ignored. And there's reasons for that which I will go into. So this is an image of, sorry, of Amir. Sorry, I don't know why my PowerPoint apologies has got two screens and they're just back to front. It is an image of Amir that Amir is in the centre. Can you see that, James? Can you see the image of Amir? I just want to check. Clearly. Great. I will note that your title says O masca, but the figure says mania. He was also in O masca. So that's, thank you. No, he was also in a masca as well. But this image particularly was taken in a different camp. Now he, when I interviewed Amir, we were in an organisation sitting there talking and he pulled out an image, this image, and he turned it upside down and he pushed it towards me and said, I can't look at this image. I can't stand to look at this image. This is my past. I don't want anything to do with my past anymore. And this image has obviously gone around the world. It's been an image that's been used numerous, numerous times to reflect atrocities in the camps in Bosnia. So Amir was one person that was wanting to, because he was speaking to me, wanting to be represented, wanting his voice out there, but also at the same time not wanting to discuss his past. The idea of my research was that I would go in and interview these men, but it would be on the terms that if they wanted to talk about their camp experiences, they would. I went in to talk about their future, about their life in Bosnia now. All these men still live in Bosnia. They live in the areas where they were, where the camps are, where they were persecuted, where they were incarcerated. Amir, in particular, was somebody, again, like the next case study, who didn't want to talk about his past, but at the same time, he didn't want people to forget. When I was talking to these men, I made a conscious effort to watch them and listen and not ask. I asked a couple of questions and then I would let them speak. When they were speaking, Amir particularly would grab his legs in pain from where he was trodden on in the camp. He would sleep on some steps and people would walk up and down the steps and just step on him. He had broken ribs, a broken leg, all sorts of injuries. He said to me that he was constantly in pain, not just emotional pain, but the pain from his broken bones. In particular, he looked at me in my eyes, but he would grab at his legs. I acknowledged in my research or in my writing how these men interacted with me. That was Amir. I turned to Fikret. Many of you may be familiar with Fikret. Fikret was the young man who was 22 at the time in 1992, who was photographed by British journalists. Some video footage was taken and then it was turned into images. He was splashed across the Time magazine and a number of other publications without his knowledge. Fikret, I interviewed Fikret as well. He made it very clear to me that this image saved a lot of lives, but he would always regret the image. He has never been able to escape the concentration camps. He still says he's incarcerated. The media is at his door constantly. They won't leave him alone. The image next to this one was taken 15 years after. It was an anniversary photo taken by the Sun newspaper in the UK of him posing outside in exactly the same position. No shirt on with jeans and a belt, but he was holding a shirt with the building behind. They took this image thinking that it was an anniversary story and that it would bring awareness to his story. However, Fikret said to me, he feels obligated to the press. Obligated is the word that Fikret uses to describe the relationship with the news media. As long as the world is the way it is with torture and war, the picture will always be with me. As long as there is hate and hell in the world, I will love that photo because it is a sign of what people go through. But as long as there is hell, that picture will haunt me. This is some of the damage that the media can inflict on survivors when they continuously go back. I'm going to be talking about some points of discussion that I've come up with to avoid this. Then we have Shrekky, who was in Cooler Camp. He said, I start feeling anxiety the moment I start thinking about the camps in my life now. To be accepted as a citizen, a normal citizen of the town where I was born. I had the feeling that I returned as a citizen of a lower order, lower class. Nothing is the same. It is not how I imagined it. Shrekky was in Cooler Camp just outside of Sarajevo. He spent a lot longer in this camp than some of the other camps that were set up. When I met him in 2015, he walked into the organisation where I was interviewing some of these men from Cooler Camp. He walked in with a loaf of bread. He said, that's all he lives on a day. He lives on half a loaf of bread. Nobody recognises the suffering that he went through in Cooler Camp. This was one survivor who was raped in the camp. He was homeless when I met him. He was staying at a friend's house just temporarily to look after it. All he would be able to do was to go to a soup kitchen. They would give him half a loaf of bread instead of a couple of pieces of bread. He said to me that nobody cares about him. He was deported from America for beating up somebody. He was deported back to Bosnia and he's just been left to his own devices. It's no money, no support except from the organisation. Again, they are also struggling. He said that at the end of our interview, he said, will you come back? Will you help me? Will I see you again? This again started raising questions about journalism and advocacy and whether or not we should step in and help. I returned back in 2018 to interview Shrekhi and he has disappeared. He is no longer, nobody, they no longer know where he is. So my key findings. Journalists are too often constrained by their and their industry is concerned for what is dramatic, spectacular, and to use the vernacular of the industry itself sexy. The obvious objection to such a focus is that it risks a slide towards the sensational. The more important point, however, is that a focus on the spectacular risks. In fact, I would suggest brings about a lack of concern for even an ignoring of the, you know, the mundane and the undramatic, but still wholly important and newsworthy problems of human beings. Lessons from the study may be helpful in a wider field of humanitarian reporting. However, only if reporters observe and are receptive to responses from participants. Humanitarian journalism requires the use of alternative interviewing practices, not normally associated with journalism, but to listen, observe and pick up on nuances and distress to go slowly. So it's important to note that the relationship between ill health and witnessing, which I was saying with people like Fikret and Amir and Shrekie, they are all ill. They all depend on medication. There was a case study that I did a person, a man that I interviewed who was in Luca camp from Boricco, and he I was sitting in his lounge room interviewing him. He was in charge of the camp organisation where I was, and I was sitting there, and I was observing what was going on around me and observing what he was doing. And I counted 50 boxes of medication. They were overflowing from a chest of drawers. They were on the floor. They were just everywhere, at least 50 boxes of medications. So there is a relationship between ill health and witnessing or talking to the media. Many participants insisted on giving testimony, despite knowing that the outcome of telling their stories could lead to further agitation and disquiet. Some participants said that they would have to take medication to help alleviate the foreboding that something bad could happen after giving testimony. Others were reluctant to talk. Many described their struggle to get through a day without medication. They smoked heavily to help damp down anxiety. All who spoke to me said that doing so could exaggerate their physical and mental health problems. What came through during each of my interviews was my participants desire to ensure people did not forget the horrors they suffered and the struggles that they faced today. All participants insisted that their stories be told, regardless of the individual health concerns which may have been aggravated by their witnessing. The journalists must grasp those who wish to witness are usually harmed by that witnessing insofar as it hurts them to do it. This harm cannot be avoided. What can be avoided is any unnecessary harm the journalist's representation of these witnesses may cause. My suggestions for future humanitarian journalism practice. I return back to the two questions that I originally posed. If Per Bunce humanitarian journalism draws its practitioners towards so-called advocacy journalism, does this undermine the credibility of such work as journalism? If we are inclined to consider humanitarian journalism as a good thing, whether we lean towards advocacy journalism or not, still might humanitarian journalism often do more harm than good. Sorry. It's just a bit of a weird thing with my Zoom. If Per Bunce humanitarian journalism draws its practitioners towards so-called advocacy journalism, does this undermine the credibility of such work as journalism? Potentially, but not necessarily. In my view, humanitarian journalism is unavoidably liable to creep towards the subjective advocacy approach. However, being aware of this tendency is one way to avoid falling victim to it. Such awareness is partially provided by training. Yet there is also a degree of personal and professional honesty required in order not just to practice humanitarian journalism, but to do so while keeping one's practice on the proper side of the journalism advocacy divide. Journalism is not and should never degenerate into becoming merely the mouthpiece of this or that political or ideological stance. The human aspect of the humanitarian approach clashes directly with the traditional view of the journalist as some form of mirror of society. Yet perhaps the mirror model of journalism has always been problematic. We are never wholly impartial. So again, this is my attempt on one hand to retain the objective mirror of Bunce while also recognising on the other hand the positive social good that journalism and journalists can do. If we are inclined to consider humanitarian journalism as a good thing for question two, whether we lean towards advocacy journalism or not, still much humanitarian journalism often do more harm than good. Journalism rules of conduct can only take journalists so far. They are crucial guides, but ultimately the craft of journalism in the field is immediate and is immediate. The journalist is time and time again required to make a decision whether or not to intrude into the pain or privacy of his or her subjects. This is a judgment that must be unique to each situation as to when an action amounts to an intrusion and when it does not. This highlights how vital it is the ethical and professional training given to journalists is also underscores the fact that sometimes one just is too inexperienced to handle the situation in an ethically sound manner. However, even when one is experienced, there is always a risk of such reportage. So understanding the needs of those who have experienced a trauma of mass violence is fraught with difficulty. Humanitarian journalists are in a complex position, perhaps foremost in these situations is the extreme and hence almost incomprehensible so nature of the experience itself. How can the journalists understand to paraphrase one of the participants of the present study, the true nature of life in a concentration camp can only fully be understood by those who have lived behind the wire of such a place. With this in mind, journalists of every kind. Sorry, not only the humanitarian have not only a professional but fundamentally an ethical obligation to avoid the re traumatising of their subjects. Thank you very much. That's my presentation. Thank you so much Tania. That is such an interesting reflection. Thank you. I'm so sorry that the PowerPoint was just for some reason was off like I'd have one and then something else so. It's fine. We got there. I don't know if you want to leave it up. I suggest you take it down unless you have a particular reason to keep it shared. I'm just. Yeah, okay. Yeah, that was such a fascinating reflection. I don't resist commenting that when you're an MA student there are issues around ethics that came up in terms of your dissertation, as you fully aware. So it's very interesting to see the trajectory over a number of years. Now, we're going to take questions from everybody who's with us who wants to raise a question. If you want to ask a question or to indeed to offer a comment and further reflection on on any of these issues. You can do that in two ways. One is, we're going to be open to people orally contributing their questions if you want to do that, then please raise the little yellow hand to indicate that you want to do that. But put in the chat as well that you want to do it. If you don't want to give the question orally. Then you can just put it in chat and my colleague Rachel, once we've lost Tania. I hope she'll be back. Rachel will be picking questions out from the chat to relay. So if for some reason you don't want to to to speak or you can't go to your situation, then we'll do that. But so I hope that's clear. You're back. We lost you. Anyway, so I'll repeat for you. I was just giving instructions that if people want to ask a question orally they can. They should do that by signaling with the little yellow hand, or putting a message into the chat that they wish to do that. So if anybody doesn't want to speak, who wants to raise a question, either comment, then put that into the chat and Rachel will pick it up and relay it to us. Before any of that, I'm going to, to set things going with further discussion and reflection. What strikes me is this idea you use the Buns et al definition and what struck me in that is the is the use of the word welfare, because welfare automatically in some way becomes a term of that's loaded. However we understand welfare clearly meant to be a positive attribute. So on humanitarian issues, or whether the focus is advocacy, it's that issue of welfare. And I'm wondering what kind of issues and problems that really creates if we go on further to think about that. And obviously that runs through the whole of your presentation. A journalist ethics where there are so many difficult and interesting dimensions, and this issue again of focus or advocacy. I wondered on a couple of counts that the way this links to other people's work and activity. And I think in particularly of the first of the issue of witnessing, because what all of this about really is witnessing as you use that word. And I wonder how you, if you've got any thoughts on the way that some journalists such as edw Llemi, whom you mentioned, Martin Bell, Anna Van Linden were prepared as journalists to go to be eyewitnesses. Well, well, I'm going, I'm rolling. So just wait a moment, gathering all in. I think, um, like Tania. I haven't finished. Let me finish. Sorry, sorry. Yeah. And in that concert, you know, so it's about being witnessing and contrasting that with the so-called journalistic ethics of most Americans, including David Roadie, who refused to give evidence in court because it's against this code of journalistic ethics, and this is people like Michael Nicholson, and another journalist who I won't name, but Michael Nicholson because of Natasha's story as a public account of taking a child back, helping one victim. So it's going, I mean, in all of this, there's the issue of to what extent is there a responsibility, but also to what extent do people become victims and I'm very conscious that some of those I'm aware who gave evidence as journalists in a sense became victims by entering in that process. And that links to the idea of witnesses. You mentioned Fikrit Arlieg and the whole idea of witnesses at the ICTY. And there's a very difficult set of questions about people going to give evidence, victim witnesses in one way or another, who become witness, who become victims all over again by the experience of giving testimony. And I was struck by two things in your account of Fikrit Arlieg on that. One is that the obligation, the mission, the duty, and I think that runs through perhaps whether or not you were the person in that moment in that photograph, but the sense of duty. The same applies to people who experienced the Holocaust who went through Auschwitz with no photographs perhaps. And I think beyond this, we also got this idea of witnessing being about facts, facts being a difficult matter, but facts for journalists, facts for historians and academics, researchers and facts in trials. All the issue, all the issues of witnessing, presenting a whole range of big questions. And just finally before we open up to other people, and I know that questions are coming in in the Q&A chat. I just wanted to raise, yeah, I know in your writing, you didn't mention it now, but you quote Anthony Lloyd and the idea of day tripping. And I think in all of this in the idea of witnessing and ideas, you know, whether as journalists or academics, researchers, and indeed those involved in prosecutions of trials, the sense to which, yeah, this is something those from outside can always leave behind, those who are there, those who are the witnesses, are burdened by it. And I know in the case of victim witnesses or even witnesses at the ICTY, there's an absence of support, the kind of things you were mentioning in terms of going back to journalists. I don't know if we want to go to the other questions that have been raised so far, Rachel, but I've a feeling Tiana wants to come back to me already, but I think we should get as many questions in as we can, while we have time. Why don't we gather in one more, that somebody's raised their hands, I've got a few raised hands and I've got lots of questions coming in in the chat, some really great questions, so be great if we can get to lots of them. Many of you can and Tiana can deal with as much of it as she can in the time left. Yeah, why don't we gather in, let's gather in two more and then we'll go back to Tiana here and then we'll take another round after that. The first one is from G Leslie. Do you want to put your mic on and ask your question? Thank you. Okay. I was wondering how on earth you can avoid retraining, sorry, retraumatising interviewees in the course of revisiting events. What could one go about that without doing that? Do you think perhaps that people who engage in humanitarian journalism should undergo specific training so that they're in a position to be able to be more empathetic? What should that be something which has gone into? How can you judge those who feel can be interviewed without it causing them grievous mental trauma? Is that something which you have to be mindful of? And do you feel that it's important that there shouldn't be a re-visiting of, so a re-contacting of those who have previously been contacted regarding that person who was forever being photographed so that perhaps there should be an agreement that that person, once they have taken part, will not again be contacted or will not be re-interviewed unless they give their expressed permission, whether or not as it were feeding hounded and retraumatised or whatever again. Do you think all these things need to be taken into consideration? Okay. Thank you. Quite a lot there. So Tiana, should we go back to you and you can respond and then we'll gather the rest? Absolutely. I think it was a really strong question, lots of little questions in there. I think particularly from, I'm just trying to remember everything you said, but from like I think what James said about from when I did my MA in war studies and then went as like as a journalist to academic to PhD, like I really struggled with the idea of re-traumatisation and the ethics of these interviews of going back and this is what I discuss in my thesis and I also talk about it in a chap that I had published, I think James referred to it, that there isn't a perfect solution and there are going to be times where we do re-traumatise people. But if we don't talk to people and we don't return sometimes to them to get their stories then we would never know what they've been through. We would never know history, what the history is of their suffering, of the camps, of I think with the Holocaust in particular like people didn't really start talking for a number of years afterwards. By that stage, people are getting older and everything so we need to record history. We have to do that and to do that we need to speak to survivors of mass violence. That's an absolute given but I've learnt through my research that there are ways of doing it. Training is a good thing but not all organisations, media organisations are going to implement training in ethics. Ethics for me because I teach ethics at the university, media law and ethics at university of Sydney and what I even struggle with that because we learn how the students learn about the philosophy of ethics and how to make decisions. I think training really needs to come in university. This is sort of just off the cuff like just thinking outside the box needs to come initially bringing in examples on the ground. Case studies like really showing them not just about the philosophy of ethics like Aristotle or Kant or Mill. We need to engage our students and then junior journalists as well in what actually happens on the ground in these places and to talk them through being mindful of retraumatisation, maybe some skills that to pick up on nuances, to pick up on things that I was doing in my research. Pick up on how they're reacting to to your questions and things like that. You know, this was the same with like with Fikret Alec in particular. He would not look at me. He would not have eye contact with me at all for the whole entire interview that I did with him. But at the end, the last question that I asked him as we were walking out was how are you. And those three words changed everything. It's about sympathising with them, not making any promises, but watching and listening, and it's as simple as that. It's about watching and observing and listening and just being mindful, but training absolutely. And I think that's another project I'm in talks with to talk to news organisations to find out what they do with ethics and things like that because I certainly didn't have it. And in response to James, I suspect that people like Anthony Lloyd, Michael Nicholson, and Ed Valomet also didn't have training in ethics either. We have to go on our own instincts and be. And again, as James mentioned, you know, I've been on a journey, an ethical journey, and I've seen my mistakes and I've been able to work them into my research and actually turn this around. I don't know if that answers your question. Do you think it should go as far as having actual role play mock interviewing of this kind of situation that people will be finding themselves in so that they can be aware of reactions, rather than just being textbook. So actually do it as it were for real or as real as it can be. I mean, if we could do that, that would be absolutely wonderful, but a lot of news organisations wouldn't pay for that. So we are left to our own devices to make sure that we are being ethical, that we are. And again, these simple points, observe and listen, because when you observe these participants, when you observe the people you're interviewing, you know when you're going to retraumatise when something is not right. An exact example, a case study of that, a case in, I was interviewing from Cooley camp that about 20 minutes in, he kept saying to my interpreter, is she finished, is she finished, is she finished. And I had to make a decision then, because I knew at that point that there was something wrong and I ended the interview and I haven't used him in my case studies, because he said to me, he said, I'm only here because I was told to be here by the organisation by the camp organisation, and I ended it. There's a lot to do with, and Anthony Lloyd particularly in my work, that when I write about him, he has a case where he is in, he's a junior journal, actually he's a freelance journalist, only fresh in Bosnia his first. He doesn't even have an organisation backing him, he's just there. Mort around goes off. He's up in that he's in the, where he's staying in an apartment. He looks down out of the apartment and he hears this wailing screeching of a mother who is holding her daughter of a woman that Anthony Lloyd got to know. He goes, he goes running down. This girl is dead. He has to make a decision at that point people are saying take a photo, take a photo, take the image. And he decides at that moment not to take it. It's a really powerful story. He decides at that point not to take this image of this mother wailing with holding her daughter. And instead he steps away and he walks around Sarajevo for the first time. He sees the city. He wakes up to the fact that he is a journalist and that's what he's there for. And now when I spoke to him I think at the end 2018. He said to me that he regrets not taking the image because he's a journalist and that's his job so he's gone from sort of not wanting to take it to to regretting not taking it so we go through all these changes as a journalist so I'm conscious of time so. Yes, we rapidly losing time. I think Rachel has one or two more oral questions lined up, and we'll take those and then we'll go through a run through the ones that have been written into the chat, but I will point out my mistake earlier I said to people to signal in the chat. So if anybody's tried the chat and failed, do what those with more initiative have already done and go to the Q&A and pursue mine. Rachel. Thank you. I'm going to resist the temptation to comment on such an interesting talk. Thank you to you. So we'll go to Eric Cabandawa and then Andreas Muller who both have hands up so Eric first and then Andreas, and then I'm going to round up the questions in the chat and then we'll circle back to you to answer them all together if that's all right. So Eric, do you want to go ahead. Thank you for the interesting topic. I've got two questions. The first question is on the the viability of humanitarian journalism, because over the years we've seen even the biggest humanitarian news organizations that have exclusively over the years, have been created for humanitarian, humanitarian reporting such as the the IPS news hiring Thompson Thompson Reuters, a whole shrinking and because of lack of viability for their business models, and, and because the mainstream media do not have access to reporting humanitarian news. For the reason that you mentioned that they, they don't have commensured political interest. What model, if any, you would suggest that humanitarian news organizations can use to to stay afloat and keep doing the good work that they are doing. And lastly briefly, the question about the ethics that you, the question of ethics that you talked about when you in the field as a journalist. I remember the story of the voucher and the ritual girl. That actually sparked a lot of, of a contrast in the past, where a photojournalist went into the field, and so a voucher trying to voucher trying to eat a small girl. So the question was, should I take this picture, or should I not take it and rescue the girl. Of course he ended up taking the picture of the girl. It attracted a lot of support, you know, humanitarian support to help the suffering people. But I just wanted to take you back. I know you touched on that question. That dilemma seems to have no definite answer on what, what exactly the role of a journalist when a dilemma like that, you know, faces them. I would like to bring your perspective into experiences on that question as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. So Andreas, do you want to ask your question next? Hi. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Tiani. That's really fascinating. So two really quick questions. First one, when thinking about humanitarian journalism potentially doing more harm than good, something you mentioned towards the end. Is there a way of measuring a piece of humanitarian journalism's overall net impact in some way? And how might we think about that part of, you know, it's really interesting idea you mentioned. I'm just curious about that. And very quickly secondly, probably controversial, maybe just a flat out no, but do or should journalists or news agencies bear some sort of legal responsibility for the potential longer term impact of their work on individual subjects whose traumatic personal experience are being in some ways exploited for a kind of wider, you know, beneficial purpose perhaps. Thank you. It's all right. OK. That question is also asked elsewhere, isn't it Rachel? Yes, there are questions in the Q&A as well. So if you don't mind, Tiana, I'm going to round up a couple of those two and then come back to you. That's all right. You can answer as much as you can manage in the remaining time. So one question was how you reconcile, how do you reconcile going slowly through humanitarian journalism with the pressure to report immediately to the public? And I think that links to another question about the aim of humanitarian journalism and the question we just had to. Is it about giving a voice to the person who suffers or suffered? Or is it to raise awareness and maybe provide some help to those people in crisis? And on the topic of health, of help, sorry, there's the question, this may go beyond the scope of your research, but do you think there's a moral obligation for news and journalism outlets, the profit of stories of individuals in these circumstances to give them a portion of the proceeds? So it's kind of who benefits from all of this as well, which I think is a really interesting question when you think about individuals too. So the question two from Patrick Lee, Patrick asks, thank you, thank you so much, Stephen, that was really insightful. When you are conducting interviews with vulnerable persons or NGOs, do you allow the person you're interviewing to review the article paper prior to publication? Or does that jeopardise the integrity of the paper? I think I'll leave it there, but that one takes us back to this issue, I think, around ethics, but also I think the crossover and the things that we can learn as academics from this discussion around humanitarian journalism and what we're doing as researchers too, there seems to be quite a lot of crossover between. On that, there was a last question as well, which is about the frame of humanitarian journalist against wider issues, such as privacy, public interest, criminal justice, protection, treatment of witnesses and victims as well. So we can throw that one in, that was from Martin Silcock. Thank you, so I'd missed that. Well it fitted with what you were saying, so I have to bring it in to be sure. I'll go back to you. Okay, we have six minutes for you to. Okay, the first sort of question to do with taking photos in the field, I think it was, like a humanitarian model for organisations. Was that the first one? I think it was, wasn't it? Yeah. So, again, humanitarian journalism is very new. It's, there's not that many of us looking at this, and to be honest, I fell into this by accident. Ethics again, but I've said, wasn't my strong point, you know, in a sense like working as a journalist and then I, and as James would know, really struggled with, you know, sort of academia and ethics and ethical approvals and things like that. I think it's a very new field, and this is something we're working on at the moment looking towards like some sort of model that, and there isn't anything. This is a problem, there's lots of definitions out there. There's lots of, like you can look at peace journalism, which is different, and there's a lot more on that, more advocacy journalism, but humanitarian journalism is very new, like maybe in the last eight, nine years. You know, on my hand, I can count number of academics, pretty much that I know of, you know, that that I've been using in my research that there is just isn't that many, but in regards to a humanitarian model, keep, you know, stay tuned, because that is something that we are actually looking at. Taking photos in the field. I remember exactly what that was about me, I think my, my role in the field and going back to Iraq and Afghanistan and Bosnia particularly. It's difficult, and I feel for Anthony Lloyd, because when you're in the heat of the moment, you know that as a journalist you have an instinct you are born with something in you went, you know, as a journalist, and you just do it. There's not a lot of thinking, and so I'm not convinced that training would have an impact, because when you are in the heat of the moment, you just get the story. Then the net impact of measuring what was somebody said something about the net impact, measuring humanitarian journalism the net impact on. I'm not quite sure about that one. I think it was the balance of harm and good being done through humanitarian. Is there a way of calculating the net outcome in terms of again humanitarian journalism is new. There isn't any kind of structure out there or anything at the moment and again we're working on this. And I'm hoping now I'm writing to fully into this now like this is my this is my field and so these ideas actually that you've given me through these questions are things that I will consider and look to but there is there is no measuring of the net impact of humanitarian journalism and how it actually works but that's a good research idea. The journalism news agencies legal responsibilities for journalists. Sorry. And moral responsibility. Okay, so when when we're in the field, there is a obviously a legal responsibility of the organization that you work for. And there is a responsibility of the journalist as well to to act ethically, but I guess again with humanitarian journalism particularly there's no guidelines there's nothing this again very new. Legal responsibility to make sure that we don't you know we don't bribe we don't bribe anyone we don't do anything that is you know legally reprehensible. You know anything that we wouldn't do in our own country we wouldn't do in somebody else's country with that with their interviewing them. Sorry, I'm just aware of the time. Reconciling going slowly. Well I think with you know with digital journalism now you find a lot of organizations actually have long form journalism and then you can flick through the stories and it's absolutely beautiful because you can. You can see part of the story and there's images and you flick through. And I actually think there is still a market for for slow journalism for stories. For me particularly I think it was like 1989 when I first sort of starting out and there was a story in the mirror newspaper and on the front there was a picture of a young child in Ethiopia or somewhere around the world and it was Anton Antonovich was the journalist and I still remember because it's such an impact on me, and it said on there in it by the time you turn this page. This child will be dead. And you turn the page and it's in it tells you and I still have that copy of that newspaper. And that had such an impact on me that for me slow journalism, long form journalism where you can give a voice to these people to to these victim or to these survivors, so that they have an opportunity to say more than just the story or the story of thick red, you know, another image behind the wire like 10 years later. Voice awareness and help journalists are naturally curious they will, you know, we are still human beings at the end of the day even though people don't always view us as that we, you know, when we see somebody that is hurting somebody that is in pain somebody starving, our natural instincts is to help to want to help. But again, the question I guess I've been asking is, does it do more harm than good. And sometimes it does like I've been asked for money before to to get interviews with people like organizations have asked me for money and I've had to make these ethical decisions either to walk away, or to hand over money and and you know, most of the time, I am on the ethical side and I don't do anything. But to get somebody's voice out, sometimes you need to do things that are slightly unethical, if that makes sense. You know, and then also moral obligation to give proceeds. It's very difficult to do that because most of the time you go in you interview somebody and you leave. And even if you're going back. It is, it can be very unethical and very damaging to promise most journalists go in, get to know these people interview them and leave and they never see them again. And a lot of the times I had participants saying to me men saying to me, when are you coming back will I see you again because people make promises, and it traumatizes them. So to then give proceeds. I just don't think that would be an ethical thing to do. Review prior publications, review prior prior publications. I don't know what that question was. Did you ask the interviewees to review what you've written? Oh yeah, absolutely. Not all the time, because obviously with language differences and things like that. There is somebody that hopefully I think she's here today, but yes, sometimes I do depending on what it is and knowing that there could be damage caused by. If I have an image or something like that. And so I do speak to them about it and I get their opinions and their thoughts about whether or not they want their names and things like that. Everything is anonymous. So none of my participants have their names or any identifying features. Humanitarian journalism against the wider justice system privacy. Again, like I was just saying, all of my participants are there is nothing that would identify them in my research at all. I make sure everything is taken out and again I have to go through ethical things, but with journalism, it's very different and we do see cases where people's identities are given out by accident and things like that. But with humanitarian journalism in particular, we are meant to be humanitarian. So we are meant to be making sure that we don't harm them. So the idea is that privacy should be should be a priority for us. And if they say they don't want to talk or they don't want to go ahead with an interview. For instance, I, and just my last point, Kasun Ubizari actually, one of the academics that I mentioned, we are working on a project at the moment looking at or just starting a project looking at refugees, talking to refugees, Bosnian refugees in Australia as an initial project, talking to them about how the media represents them, how, how they, but not how we think they're represented, but how they are represented, how they feel represented, what is it that they need to be represented. So we're sort of working on this project at the moment about turning humanitarian journalism around as such and getting the survivors to talk about their experiences. But anyway, sorry, I'm just going on. So I think we're over time. We're a wee bit over time, but it's been, been worth it. And though some of us already have other. Apologies if I didn't answer those questions properly, I just ran through them. My fault. I'm managing things. I take full responsibility. And that includes for taking things on for another minute or so. I wanted to point out that while you were speaking, indeed, after we were already past time, I think, David Pettigrew, you might know not, but I clearly asked one of the anonymous questions earlier, but now is revealed as David Pettigrew. Quick follow up to my question, which is just a comment, so no response needed. But to point out that the survivors feel the need to return to Omarska every year. They go to the commemoration in August. And that's because of the issue of memorialisation in particular, because as I'm sure you're aware, there's no more. And I think so this is all about the sense of duty, the mission, victims and of others to make sure that there's a focus. And that sense of the events and the things that happened is not lost. Tiania, you demonstrated a wonderful tour de force in navigating ethical questions. When you in that final round of answers made a comment about doing something that may be a bit unethical, I would say it's not unethical in the slightest. But we have to understand ethics is this 5000 year long tradition of negotiating complex patterns of wrong and right. And it's that negotiation and getting to the point of knowing what's right, which sometimes may mean doing something very difficult that in a normal situation you would say absolutely not. But it comes right once you balance the elements in the context. And I think that idea of a developed sense of ethics is something that really needs to be more widely discussed and explored because we tend to many of us to approach these issues in quite black and white or simplistic ways. You for a great talk, your focus is journalism, but what comes across to me is that this is all about witnessing, and journalism is one form in which witnessing takes place, but ethics and witnessing stemming from this have a number of varieties and it gives a lot of material for all of us to consider to reflect and to think about as we're going to head. So with all of that, thank you very, very much for coming back to us. It's lovely to have an alumna back in the fold, such an excellent talk. And of course we know for you, it's after 10 in the evening. I hope you had your supper beforehand. But now you can go and relax and get on. Maybe some people here will have time to grab a bit of lunch. But whatever it is, we thank everybody for attending and we thank you for an excellent presentation. It's been really, really engaging and interesting. Thank you so much. Thank you everyone. So thank you everybody else. Goodbye and we'll see you when the next round of seminars begins. So if anyone wants to email me with a question or something, please do because obviously I did rush through. If I missed something, I'm quite happy to get emails. Thanks very much. Bye. And thanks to Rachel of course for helping out on the questions and to Danny, but the schools to security studies for managing the operation. Goodbye everybody and we'll see you the next time. And Rachel, you can email me as well. Thanks. See you later.