WUWD_Ep. 41_Revolution_June 1, 2025

Toni Achebe Bell:		Welcome to the “What's Up with Docs” podcast. I'm Toni 					Achebe Bell, your creator and host. In this episode, I have 					the honor of introducing you to a vital new initiative called 					“Cause No Harm,” a human rights-based trauma-informed 					accountability movement for 	nonfiction storytellers.

				In this episode, I'm joined by three incredible guests: Jennifer 				Crystal Chien of Re-Present Media, who was on the podcast 					in 2023, photojournalist and educator, Dr. Lauren Walsh, 					and Anne Schroeter, a human rights advocate based in 						Germany, who is the impact producer for ART WORKS 						Projects. Together we dive deep into the urgent need to shift 					our industry's norms around consent, trauma-informed 						practices, and the ethical treatment of documentary 						participants.

				Because Lauren is based in New York City, I want to take a 					moment to acknowledge that she works and lives on the 						traditional lands of the Lenape people. We honor their						continued presence and stewardship of this territory. To learn 				more about the Lenape and donate to Indigenous led efforts, 				visit the Lenape Center at www.thelenapecenter.com.

				The center is a nonprofit organization, fiscally sponsored by 					the New York Foundation for the Arts. It works to create, 						produce, and develop exhibitions, public art, symposia,						performances, music, theater courses, lectures, and						publications. The center proudly acknowledges that the						Lenape today are members and citizens of these three 						federally recognized U.S. nations: the Delaware Tribe of 						Indians in Oklahoma, the Delaware Nation in Oklahoma, 					and the Stockbridge-Munsee Community in Wisconsin.

				In the spirit of resistance, truth-telling, and radical care at the 					heart of “Cause No Harm,” the song for this episode is						Arrested Development’s “Revolution.” This song just isn't a 					call to action. It's a groove-laced manifesto for building a 						better, more just world. Through storytelling, it reminds us 					that human rights and trauma-informed media are 							revolutionary.

				Hello, everyone. Welcome to the “What’s Up with Docs”						Podcast. I'm Toni Bell, your creator and host. And today we 					are talking about a new project called “Cause No Harm.” I'd 				like to start off with some introductions with our guests today, 				one of whom you already know, Jennifer Crystal Chien.						Jennifer, welcome to the podcast.

Jennifer Crystal Chien:	Hi there, thanks for having me, Toni. I'm an Asian-American 					woman. I have, medium length black hair. I am wearing a 					black, shirt that's kind of a cotton knitted shirt, and I have a, 					sort of outdoor print, behind me of, some birds and, a						seaside.

Toni:				Jennifer recorded a podcast with us about her organization, 					Re-Present Media. And then we had that bonus episode 						between, myself, Jennifer, and our former producer, Ranell 					Shubert, where we got into the doc industry and some of the 					issues that they need to grapple with in order to make it more 				equitable. So thank you, Jennifer, for being here. All right.					Let's move on to our next guest. Lauren.

Lauren Walsh:		Hello. I'm Lauren Walsh and to give a visual description, I 					am, a white woman, long, dark hair, also wearing a black					top. My background is blurred out.

Toni: 				Thank you, Lauren. And Anne, last but not least.

Anne Schroeter:		Thanks for having me, Toni. My name is Anne. I have 						medium length blonde hair tied in a ponytail. I'm wearing a 					black sort of half zipper and my background is also blurred 					out. I'm a white German woman.

Toni:				So I think black is the color for the day. Apparently a memo 					was sent and we all responded. I am a brown skinned black 					woman with Sisterlocks and I'm wearing a black t shirt and					I'm sitting in front of a blue mic with a white background.

				All right. So this “Cause no Harm” initiative is something that 					is very close to my heart. Full disclosure, I worked closely 					with Jennifer on a Initiative called “The Power of Personal 					Documentary Films.” I was an impact producer for that 						project, which helped to raise awareness about how BIPOCs 					really wanted to create personal documentaries, but really 					face a lot of obstacles because of systemic racism in the field.

				And Jennifer and I were presenting at the Arts Administrators 				of Color conference last year in Chicago, I believe in 						November and Jennifer sat me down and told me about this 					new initiative, which we now are calling “Cause No Harm.”

				One thing that led to the creation of this new initiative was 					that Jennifer, along with Anne, ART WORKS Projects and 					Bora, with the Video Consortium came together to work 						closely on “Centering Survivor Stories,” which Jennifer 						actually talked about the roots of in the first episode. The 						root of “Centering Survivor Stories” started with the 						controversy that happened around the film, Sabaya, which 					Jennifer and I go into a little bit, in the episode that I 						recorded with her. And at the time of that recording, 						Jennifer, you were just beginning to work on the campaign 					around Sabaya. So can you give us a little bit of a 						background on what happened after that campaign?

Jennifer:			Sure. So after we did this advocacy campaign to educate 					people about some of the issues around Sabaya, we decided 				that we needed to also focus on how can people learn best 					practices. How can people learn about what is working in 					the industry and what people are doing successfully and 						effectively? And so, along with two partner organizations, 					ART WORKS projects, Video Consortium, and ourselves, 						Re-Present Media basically, started this workshop series 						called “Centering Survivor Stories.” Myself, I was involved at 				ART WORKS Projects. Bora and Anne, who are the staff 						there, were involved. And at Video Consortium, Sky
				Dylan-Robbins, the executive director, Amanda and Ellie 						were involved. So it was really a team project.

				It was a collaborative where we were all engaged with trying 				to structure, the series, get the word out, do registrations. It 					was a really interesting series in that, we specifically, had 					applications. People had to be working on a film or project 					that was dealing with survivors of sexual violence and abuse 					of various kinds, and that they were sessions where we did 					document and create a best practices publication out of it.

				But the sessions were not open to the public, and they were 					not recorded in the sense that people couldn't just drop in. 					And so there was this very intimate, very deep series of 						conversations that happened over the workshop series 						where each of the four workshops featured, filmmakers and, 					sometimes, producers, directors, sometimes also, people who 				are involved in working with communities directly who were 					able to really talk about the challenges and the strategies						that they use to be effective in those situations without re-						traumatizing survivors and giving them, a lot of, agency 						throughout the process.

Toni:				Great. What was the documentation that came out of that?
Jennifer:			It's a document about almost 40 pages that now lives on the 					Video Consortium website. And it goes through all the 						various elements of the learnings that came out and it's 						organized into several sections, one on informed consent, 					another on how to conduct consent retreats, a section on 						impact, options for visual and narrative storytelling, and then 				a section of resources that people can look to as for 						additional guidance.

Toni:				Thank you. So after you all completed these series of 						workshops and the documentation was written, what made 					you all decide that you needed to expand upon this?

Anne:				We started off with, Jennifer, and her colleagues started off 					with the Sabaya, advocacy campaign. We had the workshop 				series. We realized a lot of people were interested both in 					attending the workshop series and actually there's sort of a 					small working group that continues to meet as a result of 						this workshop series. After putting together this writeup or 					documentation of the workshop, we realized that a lot of 						resources exist out there, but very little really brings together 					all of these resources.

				Particularly, many of these resources cover different aspects, 					but none of them really look at it through a human rights lens 				and through a lens of protecting the rights of individuals or 					communities participating in the filmmaking processes or in 					the filmmaking projects. We realized this is a gap that we 					can fill together with other collaborators.

Toni:				So one thing I noticed, during my tenure as filmmaker 						services manager at the International Documentary 						Association, I had the opportunity to review a lot of 						proposals, probably, 10 to 15 each week for people who 					are submitting for fiscal sponsorship.

				There were countless instances where people who were 						filming in communities that weren't theirs had questionable 					things in their applications. For example, when going into a 					Native American community or Indigenous community, 						writing things like, “This story hasn't been told.” and the 						documentary is, going to be set in Pine Ridge and we know 					there've been so many documentaries done about Pine 						Ridge.

				There have been issues around budgets, because, budgets 					do reflect values and you'll see things, for example, money in 				the budget to secure a publicist for potential Oscar 						campaign, but nothing around impact. There are often no 					people from that community represented on the team, or if 					they are on the team, it's clear that person doesn't have any 					power or any 	say so within the context of that team. Because 				of the way the industry is, when I would bring up these 						things, to these filmmakers, and if they happen to be well 						known, moneyed filmmakers, a lot of times my concerns were 				overridden by the powers that be. And I say all that to bring 					to the forefront of why there are lapses that eventually lead 					to injury to film participants, because yes, there is a lot of 					responsibility on the shoulders of the filmmakers and, from 					my point of view, filmmakers have a duty of care.

				But, before Sabaya or Jihad Rehab gets to a festival, 						hundreds of people have viewed that proposal. Hundreds of 					people have seen clips of the film. Several people have seen 					a full cut of the film, and sometimes for whatever reasons, 					things aren't questioned. So, let's talk about where the lapses 				occur, and particularly who commits the lapses.

Jennifer:			Okay. Who commits the lapses. I think that this is an 						interesting question because there's been a huge focus on 					creators of the media being the primary party responsible, 					but as you said, Toni, there's actually a whole ecosystem of 					people who are involved in funding distribution who are 						interested in programming, who are interested in
				co-producing, investing in films.

				And equally important, if not also, more powerful influence 					on the content that gets created I think. it's important for all of 				those parties to be aware of what are some of the challenges 				that can arise in working with participants who've 							experienced trauma, so as to not to retraumatize people, to 					respect their basic human rights, to be able to create content 					in a way that doesn't actually endanger and damage people.

Toni:				Yeah, so the responsibility belongs to all of us who work in 					this industry in any capacity and Lauren, you're coming from 					a different framework, a photojournalistic, framework, 						because this “Cause No Harm” initiative is not just geared					toward, documentary filmmakers, but all nonfiction content 					creators.

Lauren:			Right. Thank you for giving that setup, because I'm not 						coming from the doc film space. I was brought into this 						conversation, because of my role in a photojournalistic 						space. I'm frequently the cultural critic or the advisor or the 					editor, often with specialty in conflict or crisis.

				So the harm can happen in any setting. I often found myself, 					working alongside people where the potential for harm 						seemed, really there, and you're already, working in spaces 					where, everyone is heightened and the dangers are high and 				you have survivors.

				So it's really important to think about these things. I would 					echo, what Jennifer said, that It's not just one single person 					who is responsible or bears the responsibility for thinking 						through the potential harms. But I think it's maybe a smaller 					ecosystem. It's not as many people as work on a film.

				And so at times it might simply be the photographer and their 				editor. In terms of, “What are the lapses?” I think the lapses 					can really range, everything from not thinking through the 					impact that a published photo might have on the person 						you've taken the picture of. 

				If they're a survivor of sexual violence and you take a 						picture of them and show their face publicly, what harm 						might come but it doesn't have to be, I also don't think it 						needs to be such a kind of grand topic as sexual violence. I 					think harms can come in smaller ways as well. The picture 					that has been taken many times before and has become a 					stereotype can also cause harm. When it comes to best 						practices and avoiding harm, I think every photojournalist 					should be thinking about this and getting training in this.

				And I would almost say that maybe the lapses occur because 				historically, this isn't how the photojournalist was trying to 					approach their work. Historically, this is absolutely not a 						topic that was appearing in journalism schools. One thing I 					can add to this is that I am based inside a university, right?

				So I am a professor. So I think very deeply about the role of 					education and training, in terms of how do we move forward 				through a space where maybe historically harms happened 					because people didn't think about it. And now we have to 					raise the awareness and make changes.

Toni:				Thank you. So, can you actually speak more to the idea of 					stereotypical photos that can cause harm?

Lauren:			Yeah, I think, a kind of go-to example, would be the 						stereotypical pictures that have been taken in, let's say,						Sub-Saharan Africa for decades, right? Whether it's the 						picture of war or the picture of famine. And there's many 						ways to cover wars and there's many ways to cover famines 					and I'm not advocating for not covering them. There was a 					study that was done maybe about 10 years ago in the UK, 					and the study was not actually focused on photojournalistic 					images, but was focused on images that humanitarian groups 				use, and they often overlap a lot with photojournalistic work.

				And they were using very stereotypical images in order to 					raise funds, right? There's a severe famine happening and we 				want to raise money to go and help people. So we're going 					to show you a picture that we know people will stop and 						look at. And it's a picture of a starving child with an empty 					plate.

				What the study showed was that if you consistently show the 					same kind of stereotypical image, people will start to shut 					down to it. There was a response from the broad UK public 					of, of course, we don't want this famine to be happening. Of 					course, we don't want children to be starving, but it seems 					like it never gets better there. So why should we keep giving 					money? The first time the image is taken, it's the image, but 					when you repeat it again and again and again, It has less of 					an impact.

				It creates a negative portrayal around an entire region of the 				world. And there it's not just that one study. There have been 					a lot of people who have written about kind of the 						accumulation of very clichéd images when it comes to 						certain parts of the world.

Toni:				Thank you. Anne can you speak to lapses in regards to the 					understanding of consent. And then because this 							conversation around consent is something that's really new to 				the nonfiction media space. And of course when every 						filmmaker knows that when you're filming, you have them fill 					out that consent form, and that gives the filmmaker license to 					use that footage. Technically, anyway. So can you talk about 				the issues around consent and why the way we currently 						operate under consent is can be harmful?

Anne:				Yes. Thank you, Toni. You just mentioned the forms that you 					fill out, we all do that, I would say on a probably weekly or 					monthly basis at least for any sort of event that we attend, 					right? Do you consent to your photographs being taken? Do 					you consent to the event being recorded, etc.? And for us, it's 				it's no problem signing this consent form or also ticking no 					and then signing it, saying that you don't want to be 						photographed, because we can make this decision for 						ourselves.

				When we say this, can be accepted as us knowing what it is 					that we either consented to or didn't consent to, we're doing 					this in a professional, environment where we would know 					what could potentially happen with this photo, video. The 					difference is when you're working with individuals or 						communities who are affected by any kind of human rights 					violation or even just a difficult situation, they may not always 				be able to grasp what may happen to video footage or 						photo footage that is taken of them.

				They may also be in certain situations, and you cannot 						adequately assess what the consequence of something 						because, you're so consumed or occupied by the current 						situation that sometimes you cannot, provide, such consent. 					This is really just talking about situations that any one of us 					could face. You could then add to that all sorts of other 						layers of when it is or how it is difficult to receive, a 						participant's, consent.

				For example, what are cultural dynamics that you are in, you 				and the participant. Are you of the same culture? Are you of 					a different culture? Does the participant or the potential 						participant understand to have the same possibility or ability 					to agree or not agree, to something.

				This is on a cultural level. You can add this on a gendered 					level. You can add this on a class level. Someone coming 						from the Global North or whether you call it from Europe or 					the West, someone coming to, a society or a situation where 					they're completely alien to where they don't understand how 					the structure, how the society, works.

				And then they will not be aware of all of the forces and 						factors that are at play when asking someone, is it okay if I 					take this picture? Is it okay if I film you saying this, or that? 					So these are a little bit the issues behind getting initial 						consent and then I'm sure Toni will talk more later on about 					other forms of consent that filmmakers or photographers 						would typically ask for or should typically ask for in our 						opinion.

Toni: 				Yeah, that cultural piece is huge. So far our listeners, I 						actually have moved to Mexico. I've been here since March. 					And of course, adapting to my new culture and home. But it 					really, made me think about, the first time I ever went 						overseas. I was in college and I went to Nepal, hadn't been 					anywhere before.

				Major culture shock. People there do not say “yes” or “no” 					directly. In the U. S., we absolutely do. “Do you like this?” 					“Yes.” “Do you like that?” “No.” But there, they did this yes 					or no answer, kind of this, mas o menos. It's not direct, but 					people who are from that culture understand what the yes or 					no is.

				And, when you throw that dynamic of filming and film 						participant rights and considerations into that mix 							particularly dealing with a culture who has a different way of 				expressing a “yes” or “no” or “maybe,” problems occur. 					Also alluded to some of the power dynamics that can happen 				then incur I've actually interviewed a few folks who have, 					really aken in participant care and participant stewardship as 				part of their filmmaking practices. So, can any of you speak 					to how power dynamics can come at play that might not be 					acknowledged and eventually lead to harm?

Jennifer:			Well, I can speak a little bit. I think that later on, we're going 					to dive more into the details of some of these things, such as 					informed consent. But briefly, three parts of informed consent 				consists of. “Do you have the knowledge to fully understand 					the consequences of your choice?” “Do you have the 						capacity to consent?” Someone who is having a mental 						health crisis might not have the capacity to consent or 						someone who is intoxicated, and then you basically have, 					are there any undue pressures on your decision. And so 						that's where power dynamics can come in, in the sense of, if 					you feel that someone has some type of decision making 						power that might affect your life in some way if they are 						providing some type of benefit or goods or services to you, 					this can often happen when there are participants in non-						fiction visual media. And let’s say it's the NGO, that’ 						providing them with services, with housing, shelter, food, 						even financial support that wants to film or photograph them.

				There's, a type of pressure on that consent because if they 					don't agree, does that mean that they're going to still get 						those material benefits that they're relying upon for their 						survival. Even if the party filming Is not directly providing 						benefits or services to them. Oftentimes, you're talking about 					people who are working, internationally or in different class 					situations where there's a massive disparity in terms of the 					resources that people have. And so there might be a situation 				where, someone who's very impoverished, for example, is 					attempting to obtain, or get some type of benefit from the 					person who has more resources.

				And they think that can happen by engaging with them or 					participating in the filmmaking or the photography. Of 						informed consent that's around undue pressures, really 						speaks to a number of pressures, but I think often to 						acknowledging and recognizing that when there's power 						dynamics at play, whether it's around decision making, 						economics for example, might be able to help you immigrate 					to another country, if you're facing a situation where you 						need to, leave your current scenario.

				And people who have a lot more privileges and advantages 					can be seen as having access to resources. And so is 						engaging in that relationship truly just for the purpose of, 					being able to document or demonstrate what's happening or 					is there actually an external benefit? And how does that 						influence the consent process and relationship? So those are 					really great things to consider.

Toni:				Thank you. So now I want to go into why some of these 						lapses happen. Lauren considering you’re working in the 						realm of photojournalism and your industry has a faster 						timeline than [the] doc industry because you're trying to get 					the news out right now and sometimes there may be a sense 					of urgency that may lead inadvertently to lapses that occur. 					So can you speak to that? 

Lauren:			My starting point by and large is most of the photojournalists 				I know, are well intentioned people. There's probably some 					bad apples out there in every industry, but I do tend to find, 					that the people I'm working with or the people I know of, are 				really trying to do something new.

				But I think a lot of times, there is a misunderstanding that 						good intentions will have good outcomes. I think, a lot of 						times it's a lack of understanding or a lack of thought. And 					again, that's not because they were malintentioned, but if 					you don't think it through and you don't think about the 						hierarchies we were just talking about, and you don't know 					the cultural nuances, as you were saying, Toni, all of these 					things can make your well intentioned work come out and 					have some bad consequence.

				So I think that's usually what I see more often than not. The 					photographer who is actively trying to raise awareness 						about something, and that's their good intention. But in 						raising awareness like what processes did you use and what 					was the outcome. I think there just needs to be so much more 				thought and training through this lens. We have to think this 					start to finish, not just the starting point.

				The other thing I would say in terms of these lapses is it [is] 					just baked into the ecosystem, into the media landscape. This 					is true, probably broadly speaking, but certainly in 						journalism, photojournalism. I'll just kind of borrow an 						anecdote from a photographer I know. His name is Shahidul 					Alam. He's based Bangladesh and the way he was talking 					about it in terms of power dynamics, going back to that and 					this is the structure. You have the editor, on to. You have a 					photographer who picks up the camera and takes the 						pictures, and then you have the individual who's being 						photographed.

				And he gives this anecdote where he says, “You've got a 						farmer in a field who's suffering something. So the 						photographer shows up and takes the farmer's picture. And 					then the photographer sends his images back to the editor in 					New York. And then he says, he person with the most 						knowledge is the farmer on the ground.

				The person with the least power Is the farmer on the ground. 					The farmer doesn't have a say in how the farmer gets 						represented because that passes through the photographer 					and then to the editor who will make kind of final 							contextualizing decisions.” It's a powerful and illustrative 						anecdote of the power hierarchy. You're telling the story of 					the farmer, but the farmer has no say in how his story is told.

Toni:				Yeah, that's a great example. And I want to go back to what 					you were saying about intentions and outcomes, because this 				is the conversation Jennifer and I've had many times, and, 					some of the presentations we've done together, at the Arts 					Administrators Conference and European Film Market go 					into the problem with the focus on intentions. So Jennifer, can 				you talk about the intentions versus outcomes argument? 						Because I feel like that is something that is often overlooked 					and actually decenters the person who has experienced the 					harm.

Jennifer:			Sure. I think that, overall, we're actually focused on things 					that are primarily from the perspective of the creator and of 					the media and the people down the chain who are involved 					in evaluating it, distributing it, supporting it, and all those 						things. I know we'll get into this a little bit more later but I 					actually think that we need to have a stronger focus on, from 				the perspective of the participants, how are their needs being 				met?

				How are their rights being protected? How are their interests, 				for their own well being and their safety? And if the intention 					of this media is to somehow document support and improve 					their conditions, how is that happening from their 							perspective? And not necessarily only from the perspective of 				the creators of the media.

				So I think that that's a shift in where are we looking for 						accountability, is that often we're saying, the creators should 					be accountable to themselves, but actually they should be 					perhaps accountable to the participants that they are filming 					and photographing. Perhaps that's actually a better way to 					look at this reciprocal relationship and not sort of as a 						detached from that relationship that actually directly might 					harm or benefit the participants.

Toni:				And that actually leads me to when harm occurs - the film 					Retrograde. Anne if you could just talk about what that film is 				about and really the level of justification to the harm that 						came to the person who was in that film who ended up 						losing his life.

Anne:				Yeah, I can start and then, anyone else feel free to 						compliment what I'm saying. Retrograde is a documentary 					film which accompanies Afghani individuals who worked 						with US troops while they were still in Afghanistan. And, it 					shows their work. It shows their conviction and their 						dedication to their work.

				It includes oftentimes their faces, their real names, and 						possibly other information that makes them identifiable. 						Unfortunately, since the Taliban took power again in 						Afghanistan a couple of years ago, there's a prominent case 					of one individual who was, first abducted, detained, and 						then later on killed by the Taliban for what they perceived to 					be his work against the Taliban, collaborating with, U. S. 						troops and forces. It is now being said that the filmmakers 					were made aware that it was a big risk to show names and 					faces of these individuals in the film even though at the time 					when it was filmed there wasn't the expectation of the Taliban 				taking power again.

				But that also doesn't mean that the Taliban had ever entirely 					disappeared from Afghanistan, right? So even if they had not 				taken power over the entire country again, who knows what 					would have happened in certain provinces how the situation 					could have developed there and whether this may have also 					caused risk or harm to the involved film participants.

				What I'm trying to say is that the filmmaker was made aware 					apparently repeatedly of the danger and of the risk of 						showing the individual's faces and names. And they claim 					that they weren't made aware of these risks. Whereas other 					participants have claimed that this was pointed out to them 					repeatedly. Former U.S. troops back in the U S who have 					worked with their former Afghani partners have also raised 					the situation that there's a general concern for the safety of 					these partners in Afghanistan. And as you said, 							unfortunately, at least one of the protagonists featured in this 				film has since been abducted, and killed.

Toni:				It's a really disturbing, story. There are ways for creators to 					tell these sensitive stories and protect folks anonymity. The 					Undocumented Filmmaker Collective have guidelines in this 					regard when working and shooting folks who are 							undocumented, I've advised on films that during the editing 					process do what they call a security scrub.

				So removing, logos, maybe not filming folks directly 						removing license plates. Not really getting specific about 						where they're filming. I even saw this short about 							undocumented folks. I'm blanking on the name of it, but they 					actually use the voices of the undocumented. There was one 					scene where they were talking about folks crossing the ocean 				and they actually used saran wrap in the stop motion effect 					to make it look like the water. So there are ways you can tell 					these stories but also protect people.

Jennifer:			Well, I think, there's been a lot of conversation about the 						issues that this type of scenario brings up and what 						happened with the film Retrograde. But as far as I can tell, 					there isn't necessarily a really concerted effort to create 						industry wide standards. It's seen as sort of an aberration, as 				something that happened that was not intentional, I think has 					been mentioned before, something that, perhaps we should 					be able to look at a little bit more closely. Some 							organizations, like Doc Society, have issued a statement, 						raising issues around this whole fiasco.

				And there's been a lot of internal conversation I've seen 						happening between filmmakers on the documentary side. But 				I don't know that there's actually an organized concerted 					response to deal with situations like this that are basically red 				flags, there were warning signs. The idea that we're 						documenting something for a newsworthy purpose or for the 					good of people in a certain community, or that we have to 					get things done because there's a certain broadcast 						deadline, right? This was, a production for NatGeo, right? 					There's certain people who are supporting this and funding 					this and need to see something get out there.

				There may be a lot of reasons why we push projects forward 					that might actually have serious concerns or issues in the way 				that they're being produced. And there isn't a way to identify 				or flag those projects based on some type of consistent 						criteria and say, “Wait a minute. Let's take a look at this.”

Toni:				And Lauren, can you speak to the educational gaps that 						occur that often lead to lack of respectable care when it 						comes to dealing with folks with trauma? 

Lauren:			In U.S. educational spaces, U.S. journalism schools, photo is 					not even as prioritized as the written journalistic word. And 					so I think in deprioritizing the visual, you give even less 						attention to it. But There's plenty of people who go and study 				photojournalism and of course there's plenty who don't. So 					they're outside an academic space and not necessarily 						having these conversations. Historically, journalism schools or 				J-Schools, they're really teaching the skills. It's the how to. 					How do you use this camera? How do you pitch to an editor? 				How do you lay out this? I'm not inside of a J-School. So I 					actually have a lot of freedom. You could almost call me an 					ethics professor whose medium happens to be 							photojournalism.

				And I have met colleagues in institutions around the country 					who are doing, work like this, raising this conversation 						around ethics. But I think it's still a small cohort for the time 					being. Journalism school is a one year or two year program 					and trying to quote unquote find the space to fit in a class on 				safety or best practices or ethics is often its own uphill battle, 					right, when you're just kind of dealing with a curriculum 						committee. So I think in terms of education, it has gotten 						better with focusing on this.

				And I think outside of formal educational spaces, these are 					topics that are being taken up in a kind of communal 						conversational way. But maybe just to Jennifer's point, there 					isn't a one specifically kind of codified space to go to where 					you think about and write about and talk about this. It's kind 					of happening piecemeal here and there, which is better than 					not happening at all. But, I certainly think it should be kind of 				just a formalized part of journalistic training.

Toni:				So, are classes in ethics considered part of the core 						curriculum? 

Lauren:			It's gonna be a school by school situation. I do have 						colleagues who I work really closely with who are doing this 					in their journalism schools. And then in other schools, 						especially if you're in a one year program, I don't know how 					much you're gonna get, or how much it's gonna be required 					of you to take an ethics course. This is why I think it should 					just become fundamental. If you're going to get your degree 					in X, let's make sure you have taken at least a course, if not, 					have every single course kind of thread ethical approaches 					through them, and just kind of consistently make it part of a 					conversation.

Toni:				I didn't go to film school, but I do, have one of my masters in 					visual anthropology, and, this was a topic that came up 						pretty regularly, particularly because of the horrific history of 				anthropology, A lot of the coursework that we did was about 				understanding how that history is rooted in white supremacy. 					So now I want to go into the human rights component off 						what we're talking about. Anne, Can you define what human 				rights is for our audience? 

Anne:				If we look at it, human rights are a set of norms established 					standards to protect individuals and collectives. From 						negative influences, they cover typical political rights, what 					we understand, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, 				free speech, et cetera. But they also cover, other social and 					economic rights, which may be in some parts of the world 					are more seen as social justice issues rather than human 						rights issues, so, for example, poverty, education, et cetera. 					States and government authorities are primarily responsible 					for accepting human rights, taken from the international 						level, and then take them into their domestic, systems and 					implementing, them in policies and laws on the domestic 						level. So it is human rights protection and promotion are 						primarily a task for government and states.

Toni:				Thank you. And I'd like to actually, for our audience, just 						read through the articles of the Universal Declaration of 						Human Rights that was adopted by the UN General 						Assembly in 1948 that actually relate to media. Article 1. All 					human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. 					They are endowed with reason and conscience and should 					act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood. Article 					three, everyone has a right to life, liberty, and security of a 					person. Article 12, No one shall be subjugated to arbitrary 					interference with his privacy, family, home, or 							corresPineence, nor to attacks upon his honor and 						reputation. Lauren, can you also speak to some of the 						aspects of the Geneva convention that could apply to the 					media? 

Lauren:			Sure, with the preface that I am not a legal scholar, the 						Geneva Conventions are a set of treaties and some 						protocols, that are fundamental to international humanitarian 				law. Which overarchingly is looking at the rights of non 						combatants, generally that's what we understand to be 						civilians. The Geneva Conventions also have some space for 					wartime prisoners, and codifying the Behaviors of military 					personnel. So, what I was thinking about in light of this 						conversation is, those conventions are not written for the 						media. It is states that are beholden to them. But I think they 					set out guidelines that can be helpful for the media. One of 					the ways that I was thinking about this, because it has come 					up over the past year or so.

				I remember it coming up as part of a conversation with, the, 					Russian full scale war in Ukraine. If you are a POW, you are 					essentially in the hands of the enemy. There's a series of 						things that are protected, like how much food you get and 					conditions, but part of this exposure to public curiosity is also 				the protection, from humiliation or distributing, identifying 					information, some photographs. But it becomes very 						interesting when you think about the role of the media, 						especially if we're talking about visuals that maybe are 						distributed or disseminated by a state that is holding POWs 					or if the press is invited into a space where they can see 						POWs, do you take the pictures?

				I think following the guidelines of the conventions makes 						sense to me. They're there to protect human life, and the 						rights afforded to human lives. The place where it gets 						trickiest or grayest is when the media have to make the 						decision, that there is an overwhelming need to know there's 					something so overwhelmingly newsworthy here. And that's 					where I think you get into the space that we've been talking 					about. So is there a way to do that is there a way to convey 					that, and still try to work within the framework that protects 					the individuals? I think it's not a topic that I've seen come up 					too much, in part because, see POWs are potentially already 				the quote unquote enemy, so, why would we give them extra 				rights?

				But I think it's a conversation we should be forcing and 						should be having and thinking about, these kind of very 						tricky, what seem to be grey zones, or seem to be a bit 						unexplored. And again, I think many photojournalists would 					err on the side of, I don't want to cause any harm. And 						others might say, Those conventions are not written to 						regulate my job. I'm a journalist. And I think that's where 						you'll start to hear a debate as opposed to a conversation.

Toni:				So what you were saying actually made me think a lot about 					the film, Jihad, Rehab. Which was another film that, 						Sundance programmed that was ripe with controversy .And 					I'm wondering if, there was an issue or complexities around 					how those folks were designated because, the U. S. 						government likes to play with language, and what people 					are called. So, they did not have certain rights on the 						Geneva Convention. And then there were issues around 						consent. Also, some of the anti Muslim sentiment that a lot of 					folks believe that film, uplifted and unfortunately showcase. 

Jennifer:			Jihad Rehab was filming former Guantanamo detainees who 					were sent to a rehabilitation center in Saudi Arabia. And, 					there are many, many issues with filming people who are 						detained in Saudi Arabia, including, things that the detainees 				themselves have brought up. One is that a number of them 					were never charged with any specific crime. But in the film, 					many of them are portrayed as basically people who have 					already conducted terrorist acts or who are assumed to have 				done so, right? So when you're talking about, people, having 				their honor, their reputation harmed, there's people who 						were never charged with any crime and yet are being 						treated as if they have committed crimes in the documentary, 					right?

				That's some of the questioning that they were subjected to, 					from the filmmakers. The other part of it is that, there's a lot 					of question as to whether someone who is, detained in Saudi 				Arabia actually has the capacity to consent to be able to 						express their story and what they want to say in an authentic 					way without fear of retribution, either for themselves or other 				family members. One of the factors was the pressure to 						consent. What kind of story are you actually getting from 					people who are, perhaps having risk of harm to themselves 					or other family members or their possibility of being released 				from there, depending on what they say. So there's a lot of 					problematic things about that film. Those are just a few off 					the top of my head.

Lauren:			The one thing I'll throw in is that international humanitarian 					law applies during armed conflicts. I think there's 							international human rights law, which maybe would be 						applicable here, but the kind of law of war may not even be 					applicable in a space of non armed	combat.

Anne:				This is why the U. S. government sort of started using the 						term the global war on terror, which to get around where is 					the combat actually taking place? Is this an armed conflict? 					Yes, no. Is this an international or non international armed 					conflict which then determines sort of which Geneva 						Conventions or additional protocols are applicable anyways? 				All technicalities to say, that, this global war on terror, this 					term was started to be used by the US government exactly to 				make it seem like these people were combatants, like these 					people, were somewhat outside of the laws that were the 					human rights that would have been applicable and that they 					should have enjoyed. It's exactly sort of this using of the 						term, to make them outcasts. And, to find a way to legitimize 					the way they were treated in Guantanamo, and, beyond.

Toni:				Laura, what about the, Murad Code?

Lauren:			I feel like possibly, Jennifer can also step in here. The Murad 					code, for listeners is kind of not governing, but, setting 						guidelines, for, Dealing with instances of sexual violence and 				conflict. I've seen so many cases where photojournalists 						have, been in spaces where sexual violence has been a tool 					of warfare and they are documenting, survivors or the 						aftermath. And with a lack of understanding of just how 						immensely consequential, the situation is or what the survivor 				has been through or how harm, can continue or how trauma 					can continue or get retriggered. I very much advocate for 					journalists understanding what trauma informed reporting is, 					which doesn't have to be specific to sexual violence. But, you 				know, that is one example or one way of thinking about it.
	
Toni:				And Jennifer. Want to just get your thoughts on what does 					this look like within the documentary film space?

Jennifer:			Well, I think I just want to wrap up our previous brief, foray 					into jihad rehab, which is that people may say, Oh, what 						you're trying to, protect people who, are these terrorists who 				are, potentially causing, great harm to, either the interests of 					our country or other aligned forces. And I think that's, Not 					really the point. I think the idea, which is kind of interesting, 					we're struggling with domestically right now, is do we stand 					for the rule of law, right? And do we apply that to ourselves 					as well as to others? And part of the rule of law is respecting 					and enacting human rights protections for all persons, 						including people who may be committing crimes, right?

				So that we don't say that we are above and beyond that, 					and we have the capacity to act without any regard to the 					laws, if it's convenient to us. And so I think. that's a very 						large conversation that's happening right now in the U. S., in 					terms of how do we look at that? Is that something we want 					to preserve and protect? And if so, then I think when it comes 				to this area we're working in which is nonfiction visual media, 				and the way we interact with people who are part of media, 					I think the same question arises. Do we have this role in 						trying to advance and preserve the human rights of the 						participants of media and not just sort of say, well, because 					they are doing something good or bad or because there's 					someone who has, they're in a more desperate situation or 					because maybe they've been subject to some terrible crimes 					or atrocities and we're just here to help them, that we can 					step around the protections and the rule of law to do as we 					please with people who are participating.

				That's actually where I see the gray zones flipping towards 					that it is not just sort of up to individual discretion to say I can 				interact with people however I like as long as I have perhaps 				some type of noble intention, right, for them, or as long as 					perhaps my goal is not to harm them. So I actually think that 					we need to counterbalance this idea that media creators are 					the ones accountable around an ethical framework, which is 					really important and very essential to we need to center the 					human rights of participants. And what are the methods and 					strategies that we can use to protect them?

				Because certainly when you create a piece of media, you 					should not be violating people's human rights and harming 					people while you're doing that. That just seems nonsensical if 					we believe that we want to operate in that way, right? As 					societies that are based upon the rule of law and not just 						upon this arbitrary, well, if I decide that this is moral ethical, 					then I can do it, right? So, that's kind of how I see things 						happening and how it's tied into the larger, I think, 						conversations we're having here, at least in the U. S.

Toni:				And that actually leads into, what are, the remedies, what 					are the responsibilities for non visual, media creators, those 					who, fund media creators, and those who distribute? What 					should be the responsibilities of those folks?

Anne:				Seems like you're asking me to solve the puzzle now. These 					people have different roles in creating fictional media, right? 					And their responsibility is in accordance with that role. A 						funder should ensure that what they fund adheres to good 					standards. Someone who creates this should ensure that what 				they're creating adheres with good standards. And someone 					who distributes it needs to ensure that what they're 						distributing is, is in adherence with, with good standards, 						right? So I wouldn't say that all the responsibility lies only 					with one individual or one role within this process. It is a 						shared responsibility.

				Because it means that we can come together in groups and 					discuss and solve problems and solve issues jointly. None of 					us is solely responsible for how a photograph or a film is 						taken, edited, and then distributed. Which means that we can 				all check on each other's work, right? Toni, what do I think 					the issues are? Maybe things that you've overlooked because 				you have a different perspective than I have. You know, 						you're a woman living in Mexico. I'm a woman living in 						Germany. What is the difference? Maybe I see things that 					you hadn't seen. Maybe you see things that I hadn't seen. 					So, it's really upon all of us to implement and to ensure this. 					I'm going to say human rights abiding system of media 						making and storytelling.

Toni:				All right, that's a great point because we all have different 					lived experiences. So like you said, from those lived 						experiences, we may be more aware of some things and not 					aware of others. And it's great to have that diversity of 						experience all in the room so we can learn from each other. 					Unfortunately, a lot of times, that's not the case because 						people still make some questionable choices. I wanted to 						ask, what are the rights of these non fiction visual media 						participants as well as potential legal remedies?

Anne:				I mean, I can maybe say a little bit about the rights and then 					Jennifer, you're welcome to come in. I think it revolves 						around the term “consent” and “informed consent,” right? 					Every participant has the right to participate, and they have 					the right to disengage their participation from a project. 						Which means that just because someone has at some point 					consented to being included or to participating, doesn't mean 				that they can never change their mind. And what's important 					to say is that they don't have to give a justification for why 					they changed their mind. This can be purely because 						internally and within themselves, they've come to a different 					realization about this project, or it could also be that outside 					factors have changed, and something that seemed okay to 					do a couple of months ago when a project was proposed 					and you agreed to collaborate, he situation has dramatically 					changed or even not so dramatically, but it has still changed 					enough for you to not, want to consent anymore. 

				This is really very basic human rights that all media or all 						participants have in these processes as to decide to engage 					or to decide to disengage later on. And then I would say on 					top of that, there are some considerations that the people 					producing the story or involved in the storytelling or 						filmmaking effort, also need to be guided by the participants 					rights. This could be, for example, deciding or speaking with 					them about, showing faces, using the actual voice for them to 				not be identifiable, whether you want to use real names, et 					cetera, all of these kinds of things that would allow to identify 				a person who does not, maybe not want to be identified or 					who should not be identified.

Jennifer:			I think a lot about the fashion industry. And I think a lot 						about how it's evolved over time, and how there's now, for 					example certifications or processes for making sure that 						things are being produced in a certain way that doesn't 						cause human rights abuses. As we know, those processes 	are 				imperfect, right? There's still abuses that happen, there's, 						certification processes that get manipulated or people are 					dishonest along the way, but there's some type of way that 					people can create these industry wide standards, and it's not 					required for people to participate.

				But certainly you can see that, for example, the public 						engages more with companies that say, “our products are 					not using child labor,” or we know that they're, paying 						workers in another country a fair wage, or that the 						environmental process that's being used to produce the 						fabrics and the clothing is not poisoning them or their 						communities, right? So, I think the idea that we can have 						something that is proactive about promoting and protecting 					people's human rights in a way that is not necessarily like 					previously, there was this conversation like, well, it's the role 					of the state or the government. And that may be the case in 					some limited situations, right?

				Maybe there's some type of example a city could have a 						preference for using, let's say, media production companies 					that have processes in place or standards or certification. But 				the state is not the only way to protect people's human rights, 				right? You have these voluntary types of processes that other 					industries have engaged with. And you also see that 						happening, for example, the food industry, right? With, 						coffee chocolate production or other things like that. And so 					these are examples of different ways you can approach how 					to protect people's human rights in a way that can transform 					the industry and doesn't necessarily rely on the idea that you 				have to get a government entity to require everyone to do 					the same thing. And so I think that's another area of 						possibility for us to consider or think about.

Toni:				Yeah, it's actually about really incentivizing particularly in 					the examples you're giving. We have B corporations and 						those are businesses that have been evaluated by a certain 					level, certain points. So they look at how they treat the 						workforce, what kind of products they produce, their carbon 					footprint, as well as how they engage with the public and if 					they follow these certain standards, they get a seal, which is 					like a validation that these people engage in these 						appropriate practices.

				I wanted to move to the education piece because I'm an 						educator. I teach classes on media and impact at Saybrook 					University and my students are primarily non traditional 						students. So people in their 30s and above. I think my, my 					youngest student was has been 32. My oldest student has 					been 78. So there is a range. And these are people who are 					getting their masters and PhDs. And my classes are more 						electives. And a lot of these folks who you were going into. 					psychology or their goals are actually to start their own 						nonprofits. And not all of them are filmmakers but what they 					are doing is learning media literacy but also learning how to 					potentially use media in their own organizations.

				And, one thing that I always emphasize, which is directly 						related to the work that I do, is the care of the film 						participant. As an impact producer, I've only worked with 					filmmakers who are actively engaged with their film 						participants and those film participants are actively engaged 					in the impact campaign. So a lot of times I interact equally 					with both parties. I want to just give a few examples of film 					participant care.

				When I was working with Odyssey Impact Partners which 					was a great organization but unfortunately, no longer exists, 					we were doing impact campaign for this film called Second 					Shot. The film centers two men. One man, when he was a 					teenager, killed the brother of the other man featured in the 					film. We were planning this launch event, and the young man 				now released and is actually doing all this restorative justice 					work in this community, working with young people, was 						going to be featured as part of the panel for the launch 						campaign for this film. And we were trying to get the man 					who lost his brother to be part of this, but he was really hard 					to get in touch with. About a week before the event, he 						finally reached out to us and he said he wanted to 						participate, but we had all these internal conversations 						because this was going to be the first time these two people 					were going to be in the same albeit virtual room.

				So, what we opted to do, because we did not want that to be 				their first meeting, we actually reached out to a member of 					the clergy who we work closely with to facilitate a meeting 					between the two of them. And to really have a conversation 					that they'd never had because, there was a lot of feeling in 					that. Based on the results of that, the feedback we got from 					both of the men, as well as the clergy person, we decided we 				moved forward. 

				We were willing, if it couldn't happen, we were willing to go 					that route as well. So I'll give that example to my students. 					These people, who are in this case, I'm talking about film 						participants are opening up their homes and their lives for 					the world to see, sometimes bringing the worst experience 					that happened in their life and revealing trauma. And you 					have to be careful with that because you don't want to 						retraumatize people. These stories are not commodities. 						Stories of people are living and ever changing. So Lauren, as 				since you're an educator as well, I'd love for you talk about 					how you are trying to incorporate some of these practices, 					convey some of these ideas and beliefs to your students who 					are going to be these future journalists out in the world.

Lauren:			In my classes, I place a very great emphasis on these kinds of 				topics. Because these are things that are of great interest to 					me. As I was saying before, I have a lot of flexibility with the 					classes that I'm able to teach. One of the other spaces, it is 					not formal education, like at a university, but I also do a lot 					of trainings in the photojournalism space, and this is not a 					statement that can be made globally. Cause there are parts 					of the world where you can get training, and then other parts 				of the world where people are like, what's the training? But I 					would say that with a lot of the organizations or media 						outlets where I'm working, there has been over the years, a 					growing emphasis on what are known as safety trainings.


				It started initially with let's protect the physical safety of a 					journalist and again I mentioned my specialty crisis and 						conflict because those are places where it's not a stretch of 					the imagination to understand that people are in physical 					danger. So are the journalists who are documenting the 						people in physical danger.

				So there are these safety trainings that are there happening. 					And I try to be a part of them, to talk not about what kind of 					flak jacket should you wear or how do you put on a 						tourniquet, but to talk about responsible practices and the 					safety trainings are very much framed with. And this goes 					back to a point Jennifer was saying before, thinking about 					the creator as opposed to the subject, but even there, there's 					a way to frame it. And you were just talking about, survivors 					of trauma. And so when I'm talking about trauma informed 					reporting, understanding what is trauma, how might it affect 					the person you are photographing and importantly, what is 					going to happen after you leave? How are they going to be 					impacted by whatever got stirred up with the documentation? 				But there's a way in which I bring that into safety trainings. 					Because I like to frame it as as I said, by and large, I feel like 				the people I'm working with are good people not trying to 					cause harm.

				And there's a way I can say to them, “First of all, you don't 					want to cause harm.” So you need to think about the 						subjects. And secondly, if you do cause harm, it's also going 					to harm you. Like you are going to experience something 					potentially devastating because you have just hurt someone 					who was already hurt. So maybe a reframing of trauma 						informed reporting, looking at it in terms of both the survivor, 				or whoever may be in the case of photojournalism, wherever 				you might be taking a picture of, but then thinking about, 						how does this also impact the journalist, and trying to make it 				a reciprocal framing in that sense.

Toni:				So thank you, Lauren, for talking about the importance of the 				education piece. What Re-Present Media and ARTWORKS 					Projects and Video Consortium are trying to do is contribute 					to the education of the field with this new initiative called 						“Cause no Harm.” So Jennifer and Anne, can either of you 					speak to why creating this guide is so important?

Jennifer:			Currently, there are a lot of independent producers, 						filmmakers, journalists who are out there and have 						developed their own practices, and some of those are 						collected and written up and codified, and some of them are 					not. Or some of them are gathered more informally and 						written more for an individual or group's use, but haven't 						been widely distributed. And so I think we started realizing 					that there's actually a lot of resources out there in the field, 					but they haven't all been gathered in one place and then set 					into some type of context.

Anne:				We realize that there are a lot of disparate resources out 					there some sort of, you know, more written down and more 					widely available than others. And what's difficult is that 						sometimes you're working on a storytelling project and you 					look at these existing resources and you're like, “What does 					this mean for me? What does this mean for this project, for 					this situation?” Because, for example, the cultural 							background, the cultural components are different or the 						power dynamics are different, et cetera. It's a question of 					how can we use guides and experiences and best practices 					that were developed often for very specific situations and 					contexts.

				How can we adapt them to make them usable? More 						generally what can we take as general considerations from 					these guidelines when thinking about consent, about power 					relationships, about impact producing, about the individual 					and the community, participating in a project? And yeah, I 					would leave it there. Jennifer, carry on if you like.

Jennifer:			So I think in that way, it can make the resources and the 						things that we collect much more readily accessible. And so 					that a person can easily tell. “Okay, I'm about to do a pre 					interview. Is there something that I can pull on that would 					easily help me to get prepared for that and think about 						that?” Or, “I'm maybe I've been working with a participant 					for two years now, and we're about to go into them 						reviewing the first piece of footage to be able to get their 					consent around doesn't make sense the way that we're 						portraying them. Are there sensitivities in terms of people 					who might be put at risk by what we're showing in the 						footage? And so, what's something to help me prepare for 					that.” So we're hoping that it's not just a collection of tools 					and resources, but we can give some context and a way to 					help people easily access things that might be useful to them 					in different scenarios.

Anne:				In terms of this Field Guide and Toolkit, I think what it is also 					trying to do, and it's something related to what Lauren said 					earlier, is that much of the sort of trainings and guides out 					there, exist from a storyteller's perspective, and I think what 					we're trying to do is to complement what exists from a 						storyteller's perspective with, resources from a participant's 					perspective.

				It's not just about storytellers not causing harm to themselves 					by taking care of themselves, being aware of secondary 						trauma, et cetera, that they may experience, but it's also 						about, you also need to take care of the participants and this 				is how you can take care of the participants or these are 						ways in which you can facilitate taking care of participants. 					So, you know, to reverse a little bit and make it not just 						about many of the resources about filmmakers, journalists, 					storytellers, et cetera, but to focus on the participants.

Toni:				All right. So what type of media is this for? 

Jennifer:			We looked at several different types of related media that 					our organizations work on. And so we work with both 						journalists and documentary filmmakers, and both with still 					images as well as with film and video. 

Toni:				So all nonfiction media as we understand it today and, and, 					who is the guide for?

Anne:				It's for everyone who shares responsibility for a project, 						right? It's for the filmmakers. It's for the journalists. It's for the 					people working on the production of a project. It's for people 				thinking about or already funding projects. It's for people 					later on distributing films or photography about people 						engaged in impact production campaigns. It's meant to be a 					holistic tool where everyone who's involved in projects like 					this can access resources to guide their work and their 						engagement with such projects.

Toni:				Thank you. So we'll get into a little bit around the framework 					of this and you so eloquently described, the human rights, 					aspect, provide a human rights definition earlier, I wanted to 					get into consent. So I'm going to briefly read a definition of 					consent and how it compares to informed consent. So 						consent is someone agreeing to be involved in a certain 						action. In this case here, a storytelling project, informed 						consent happens when a storytelling participant being 						informed about the project's purposes, goals, process 						outputs, and future is able to understand what the impact of 					their participation in the project means and entails and is 						able to decide whether or not to participate without undue 					pressure or interference.

				The capacity to understand includes factors such as potential 					participants not being under the influence of substances, 						absence of significant or acute mental health challenges, 						age, especially for minors, education, and language.

Jennifer:			I think that one of the things that we'd love to sort of expand 					upon in the Field Guide which is something that's catching on 					in the larger field a bit, is the idea that not only are these all 					the elements of consent, but the consent is an ongoing 						process. It's not a situation where someone says, “Okay, I'm 					fine for you to film me or photograph me now.” What 						happens six months from now when you're still working with 					that person? What happens, in a year or two? What if there's 				unanticipated, serious negative impacts that start to occur 					because of this media being out there? So that consent is an 					ongoing conversation. It's not a one-time, you know, check 					the box, fill [out] the form kind of thing, and that that can 					actually become part of the structure of consent agreements 					and consent forms.

				Typically, at least from the documentary perspective, the 						consent form basically says, here you all for our consent for 					all time for all purposes. That's it. And that legal agreement 					can actually be written so that it has a certain check in points 				that it has certain conditions for being able to revisit consent 					over time. So I think moving towards that model rather than 					the idea that consent is a single one-time, you know, sign the 					paper kind of thing is a really important concept. And then I 					think that also that there's different tools that people can use 					for engaging participants to varying degrees around 						consent.

				So that can include a better understanding of the cultural 						language differences that may be happening between the 					parties. That may include some tools that other people have 					developed, such as creating a consent calendar or having a 					consent retreat-type format. So we really hope to deepen 					and expand upon the idea of consent in this Field Guide and 					Toolkit.

Toni:				So, this Field Guide essentially has three pillars. The first is 					human rights informed consent. The second which we're 						going to go into now is trauma informed and for our 						listeners, trauma informed, and this is a very U.S. centric 						definition which we do acknowledge, refers to two different 					aspects of the work; one as it relates to participants informed 				by the practices of psychology related to trauma, and two, 					as it relates to organizations. And these practices are 						informed by organizational principles outlined in the U.S. 					Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. And 					trauma informed has become part of the nomenclature a little 				bit in the documentary space I would say probably since 						2016, 2017.

Lauren:			What I would add from the photojournalism, maybe similar 					to you Toni, that it is a term I've been hearing more and 						more in the recent past. I , in the photojournalism space, 						have never heard it defined like I never heard it so clinically 					defined before. And it's usually maybe an echo of what I was 				saying before, but if there is going to be photographic 						documentation, that is in a space of trauma or with survivors 					of trauma, and an understanding of what trauma is. And I 					don't mean like a medical degree understanding, but an 						appropriate lay person's understanding of what trauma is, 					what causes it, what some of its symptoms or consequent 						behaviors are, just understanding from the perspective of the 					survivor.

				But then as I was saying before, to me, what is as important 					is understanding what happens when you leave, right? And I 					mean that on multiple levels I mean that in terms of like 						where the images might go, but I also just mean like if you 					have just asked someone to revisit something horrible, what 					is going to happen to them the next day or the day after?						How are they going to feel? Do they understand how they 					might feel? And if you're the one there as the documentarian, 				you should be taking appropriate steps and informing them 					that they might feel really bad or what kind of help might you 				need. And so that's how I am often thinking about it.

				And again, to your point, I do hear more and more 						discussion about it, but to the greater objective of this entire 					initiative, just the fact that you had one definition and I had 					another, things aren't codified. There isn't one place to go. 					There's a variety of online resources for photojournalists, but, 				even just getting the word out about that, let alone taking the 				next steps is that's the lay of the land in which I feel like I'm 					often trying to work.

Toni:				And, Lauren, what you said actually, makes me want to, say 					that in regards to this Field Guide and Toolkit, that it is not 					the expectation that nonfiction content creators, funders, 						distributors, et cetera, are going to be taking on a role of 					being a therapist. That is absolutely out of the scope of your 					practice. But what we're trying to do here is help those who 					work with film participants to be aware of what trauma can 					look like, how to work closely with survivors of trauma and 					have the tools in place to ensure that these participants with 					whom you're engaging, have the care and support that they 					need.

Jennifer:			I have started to see in budgets line items for a trauma 						informed consultants. The question arises should there be 						someone engaged with the project who is an expert on 						trauma and mental health issues, especially when you're 						dealing with participants who may have complex, serious 					trauma that has occurred? Part of their situation or condition 					and so the idea that you do have a consultant or someone 					who can get more into it on board to advise to help guide 					the project is, I think, becoming more acceptable and 						becoming something that's another strategy that people can 					use.

Toni:				Exactly. You know, having those mental health professionals, 					available on set, or, even after an event and I wanted to, 					bring up the film that I worked on, Second Shot. We got the 					clergy involved to help have a conversation with the two 						men. We also put in place for that clergy who is actually 						well versed not only in the trauma space, but also working in 					the justice impacted space available to those two men in case 				they wanted to talk with her after the event. Jennifer or 						Lauren, can you speak to what you mean when we talk 						about person centered accountability, as well as cross 						organizational accountability when it comes to this trauma 					informed pillar of the Field Guide?

Lauren:			One other angle that I would throw in here. Sometimes when 				we say photojournalism, we think breaking news and you're 					in and you're out really fast, but a lot of photojournalism isn't 				that fast. There is some more time and especially in those 						situations I think that building trust is really, really important. 					So that whoever you're working with, whoever you're 						documenting can trust you, which means being a credible 					person who has integrity throughout their work, right? But 					also then kind of, particularly if we're talking trauma 						informed reporting, taking time and making space for the 					person, right? And maybe that is my way of thinking about 					kind of person centered, right? It really matters in situations 					like this. And you have to do good work in order to earn the 					trust.

Jennifer:			Yeah, I think I wanted to speak to that often we think of 						trauma informed practice as something that involves 						individuals, right? But, there's another aspect of it, which is 					what is a trauma informed organization? And some of those 					guidelines, as I mentioned, started with the Substance Abuse 					and Mental Health Services Administration, with the U.S. 						government and they started laying out these guidelines for 					if you're an organization that is trauma informed, what does 					that look like? What are some of the principles that you use 					around that? It's some really interesting factors they have. So 				they lay out six principles of what does it mean to be a 						trauma informed organization, which is different than just 					being an individual. And so they have things such as, safety, 					that people engaging with your organization, the staff, as 					well as.

				The participants or in the case of service organizations, they 					call them consumers, but they're basically the people that are 				being served, that they have a sense of safety 							psychologically and physically. And how do you foster that 					within your organization. The second is that there's a sense 					of trustworthiness and transparency within your organization 					about how operations and decisions are being made. That 					way you can create and maintain trust. Among the people 					you're working with as well as internally, that you rely upon 					peer support and mutual self help, right? Peers referring to 					individuals with lived experiences of trauma, and in case of 					children, it might be family members, right?

				So, how do you involve people who are trauma survivors in 					informing the work itself,;l so that if we have a lot of this 						work and no one is actually a trauma survivor who's 						participating, then that is not a trauma informed 							organization. The fourth point is around collaboration and 					mutuality. And so that involving everyone in the process. I 					think as Lauren said, you don't have to be a therapist to 						participate and understand the basics of trauma and that 						people all have a baseline of understanding, even if they're 					not necessarily a mental health professional. There's the fifth 					principle around empowerment, voice and choice, and that 					the people who are being served are the most important 						people, and that they have the capacity to heal from trauma 					and that they should help to inform the way that you do the 					work.

				If people are having any challenges or issues, they feel free 					to say that. And then in the very last piece, actually 						acknowledging and recognizing cultural, historic, and 						gender issues and how they affect responses to and, both in 					terms of healing modalities and how to move things forward 					in a positive way, but also in terms of the experience of 						trauma. So those are some really interesting things to think 					about, because I think often we think about trauma informed 					work as person to person, but does your organization 						embody these principles so that it can be a place of safety, a 				place of safety that is informed by trauma survivors that is 					able to then, enact the work in a healthy, holistic way?

Toni:				All right, thanks, Jennifer. So that actually leads into the third 				pillar, which is community-centered storytelling. And I like to 					provide a quick definition of that. Community-centered 						storytelling ensures that those with the lived experiences are 					the storytellers who shape the data, stories, and solutions in 					relation to not only their community but also their safety, and 				those community members are the experts on their lives and 					their neighborhoods and know the strengths, assets, and 						needs that can be lifted up or that need to be addressed. I 					know earlier, I believe, it was this year, we did an event at 					the Hague Humanity Hub where we actually brought forth 					this anticipated Field Guide and Toolkit and had a community 				discussion about what should be included.

				So some of the things that actually came up with that, 						Lauren, you kind of address this, ensuring particularly in the 					conversation around stereotypical photos, ensuring voice 						authenticity. So could either you speak to the idea of, how 					community-centered storytelling is going to be a part of this 					Field Guide in particular in regards to ensuring an authentic 					voice is created or disseminated for audience who may be 					watching or consuming these products.

Anne:				I think Lauren made a good point earlier about stereotypes 					that are being reproduced by the way we tell stories and 						these stereotypes are then, impacts of these stereotypes will 					then affect probably not just the individual or the individuals 					who participated, but the larger community of which they're 					part. You cannot usually view individuals, especially if 						they've survived traumatic events, or if they've been victims of 				human rights abuses or violations. You can often not see 						them removed from the community within which they live. 					Possibly because they've been targeted because of 						belonging to a certain community, or because they've been 					targeted maybe by their own community but they're targeted 				within, or they fall victim within a network that we all live in.

				You have to bear in mind what the storytelling project that 					you're undertaking, how this may positively or negatively 					affect the community. The same goes, for example, for 						consent. Maybe just to add one characteristic of consent is 					that in certain situations, it may not be enough to have the 					consent of the individual participating in your project, but 					rather maybe you also need to get the consent of some kind 					of community leadership.

				You cannot view these things isolated or these individuals 					who you're working with, these participants isolated from 					the communities and networks within which they live and 						work when it comes to consent, but also when it comes to 					the trauma that they faced, or the traumatic events faced, 					and you have to think of both.

Toni:				Right, that comes up in the film Subject, which is about film 					participants, where the young woman who was in the 						documentary film, The Staircase, at the time she was a 						teenager and could not give consent. So the film was about 					her father's accusation of killing her mother. So yes, you have 				to look at the community aspects in this case, the community 					for her was her family. I want to kind of go into the timeline 					of the creation of how the Guide was going to be created. 					And I just want to say that when y'all were working on the 					Centering Survivors initiatives as part of that and it lead up 					to the creation of the decision to begin creating this guide, 					you did extensive research on like resources that are out 						there.

				And I was brought on to kind of compile all that. So we got a 				whole database of what's out there, the pros and the cons 					and, what's available, what gaps are or et cetera. Jennifer, 					could you speak to the long term timeline? Because, we are 					being very deliberate about this practice. and ensuring that 					there is community involvement. And when we say community 				involvement, we mean the global community.

Jennifer:			This project is really a collaborative project and not just 						among the partner organizations, but with different 						practitioners in the field. And so, part of the structure of this 					project, once we get it up and running a little bit further 						down the road is, it will be led by a steering committee of 					people who, represent different aspects of this work from 						journalism to documentary to mental health and other 						practices, related to what we've been talking about. And we 					envision different working groups who will come together 					and continue to further what resources are needed in each 					of these different topics and theme areas some of which have 				been identified, some of which can be developed by the 						working groups. We're not trying to write and create 						everything on our own.

				It really is a gathering together of people's expertise and the 				things that people have been working on. And if the working 				groups decide it could be filling some gaps, right, where 						people say, “Okay, well, you know, as far as we know, 						we've looked around. We've asked a lot of people and there 				aren't resources for these things that we'd like to be able to 					do some filling in at the gaps. The process for it is very 						collaborative. And that also means that it will be resource 					intensive once we get up and running, and the timeframe will 				be a little bit longer than just if we ourselves were to, for 						example, just write a document.

Toni:				And it's about, I would say, two and a half year timeline that 					we're thinking that, we're looking at to get this created. So 					what are some of the overall big picture goals for this? Like, 					what do you hope this guide will do within the industry?

Jennifer:			Well, from my perspective, I think the biggest goal is to give 					people in the industry across the various aspects and roles 					and jobs that people have the ability to understand, what is 					trauma informed work. What is informed consent? What is a 					community centered process in order to make sure that 						participants human rights are not violated.

				So for me, at a minimum, we cannot continue violating 						participants human rights, which cause them 							retraumatization, additional harm, and in the worst case 						scenario, the death of people who are participating in this 					media. So that whole thing, from my perspective, needs to 					stop. We have to give people tools and information as to 					how we can improve our practices and make them 						standardized and more known in a broader way.

Toni:				So, part of my work in this industry is helping people pitch, 					knowing how to pitch the project. So, tell us what you need. 					We're looking to fund this. So, how much would the overall 					project cost? And then what are some of our immediate 						needs to help get this done?

Anne:				So as you rightly said, Toni, we're sort of looking at a two-					and-a-half, maybe two, three-year timeline. Jennifer already 					mentioned some of the actors involved. So, on the one hand, 					of course, looking to fund everyone's contribution and 						everyone's participation to this Field Guide Toolkit. On the 					other hand, we're also very actively looking for the 						individuals who want to and can sort of contribute to this 						Field Guide and Toolkit, either because they have, used their 					own self designed and developed, resources that, maybe 					they'd be willing to share, maybe that they would be willing 					to contribute in a working group, or because they are aware 					of other resources existing already. 					
				But also helping us as you say, Toni to distribute, both 						interim results or interim products, of this project as well as 					at some point then the finalized versions so that we can 						reach as wide of an audience within the industry, possible.

Toni:				Since we're kind of running short on time, I would love for 					the purposes of the podcast for y'all to talk about how 						people can get engaged.

Jennifer:			If people are interested in this project, there's a number of 					ways to participate, to receive updates, to volunteer on the 					project, to put themselves forward as perhaps interested in 					the working groups or the steering committee. We definitely 					have a lot of opportunities for people to get engaged with 					this project. We have a  website. And on this website, you 					can sign up to receive information for some of the work that 					we've already done, download some of the resources, be 					able to make a contribution.

				That will really help us in being able to widen the outreach 					and the impact for this work. Is there anything else that we're 				going to have people do? . If you have any resources to 						contribute things that you've been working on that you think 					could fit this project, that you'd like to be part of the Field 					Guid and Toolkit, then that would be really great to contact 					us and let us know about that as well.

Toni:				All right. So, I like to thank you all for being here. I always 					like to give the final word to our guests. So, Lauren, do you 					have any final thoughts?

Lauren:			I'm happy to be working with amazing people, doing really 					good stuff. And I think the one thing I would add that, I think 					we didn't say earlier, is that you set it up for us nicely, Toni. 					This is broadly for kind of nonfiction, you know, or visual 						media, right? Visual documentarians. For someone outside of 				the industry, if they listen to your podcast or happen to come 				across all this, because I think sometimes people don't really 					understand how the sausage gets made. It fosters an 						appreciation for work when people understand it and I think 					it also empowers people to critique if they think something 					maybe was done in a harmful way.

Anne:				Thank you for having us on the podcast. I think I'd like to add 				that just to echo what Jennifer said, we're really looking for 					broad participation in this project. So, anyone who feels like 					whether they have something to contribute or maybe they 					just find this initiative interesting, we look forward to hearing 					from them and figuring out ways, how to make this project as 				impactful as possible.

Jennifer:			The more that we talk about people with this project, I think 					the more people say, “Oh, this makes sense.” This is 						something that we would like to do. And so it's a framework, 					that can embrace all of the different initiatives out there that 					are currently looking at how to do this, work more ethically, 					how to do work with participant care, how to improve our 					overall relationships with it participants in photography and 					film, and I think there's like a lot of room to coalesce all the 					great work that's being done and to make sure that people 					are widely informed about that. And so I just feel 							encouraged that so many people are interested in this work. 					And I hope that upon listening to this podcast episode that 					you too will be even more engaged and also find some ways 				to continue your participation.

Jennifer:			So thanks for you Toni for having us and for everyone for 					listening. 

Toni:				Well, thank you for allowing me to be a part of this. I am 					very grateful and to all of you all, and I've learned so much 					in this process and I look forward to learning more. Thank 					y'all everybody.

				Before I close, I want to share an important update about the 				film Retrograde by Matthew Heineman, which was 						discussed earlier after its release in 2022. A TikTok video 					circulated scenes from the film which were reportedly led to 					the capture and torture of Omar Kahn. He tragically died 					from his injuries in April 2023. A lawsuit has since been filed 					in the Los Angeles Superior Court claiming that the 						filmmakers ignored repeated warnings about the safety risks 					to participants ultimately leading to Kahn's exposure and 						death.

				National Geographic has since removed the film from its 						platforms. This is a sobering example of how deep these 						issues run and why Cause No Harm is not just timely. It is 						very necessary. What struck me most from our conversation 					was a shared understanding that good intentions are simply 					not enough. Human rights based nonfiction storytelling 						requires systems of accountability, trauma-informed practice, 					and a community first approach that centers participant 						rights.

				The stories we tell have real world consequences, and it's up 					to us across all levels of the industry to ensure those 						consequences are not harmful. To learn more and donate to 					the Cause No Harm initiative visit Causenoharmproject.org. 					Again, that is Causenoharmproject.org.

				Today's episode was hosted, produced, and edited by me, 					Toni Achebe Bell. The music is by Cierra Thomas. This 						episode was recorded in Ensenada, Baja, California, 						Mexico, where I now live and work. This land is home to the 					Kaa, the Pai Pai, and other Indigenous communities whose 					histories and cultures continue to shape this region. I honor 					of their resilience, resistance, and ongoing connection to 						this land. Remember, keep telling your stories ethically, 						courageously, and with care. Goodbye.