Katia Krastanova is a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist at Animus Association, Bulgaria. She has 25 years of experience counselling survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and human trafficking. She also serves as the public relations officer at Animus. Borislav Gerasimov, our colleague from the Anti-Trafficking Review, caught up with Katia to discuss ethical representation, survivor engagement, and what happens behind the scenes when a journalist phones up wanting to speak to survivors. The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Borislav Gerasimov: What happens when Animus receives a request from a journalist to speak to a survivor of trafficking or other forms of gender-based violence?

Katia Krastanova: First I find out what they want to know. I ask not only about their concrete questions, but also about their sensitivity and familiarity with the topic, and whether they understand the limitations of speaking with clients [“clients” refers to the survivors who receive psychosocial or other assistance by the organisation]. I determine whether they would respect the survivor and ask relevant questions, or whether they just want general information that is available online.

If I see that they’re sensitive but lack in-depth knowledge, I’ll support them to educate themselves. If I see that they’re not sensitive, I’ll give them information. But I won’t facilitate their access to a survivor because that would be dangerous. Unfortunately, as the years have gone by, I’ve seen fewer and fewer journalists who are sensitive and knowledgeable about these topics. This is despite their increased visibility in public and policy discourse, and the wide availability of information online.

Another problem is that journalists always want a concrete case for their material, preferably one that’s never been reported in the media. And they want it on a tight deadline; they call you today and want to speak with a survivor tomorrow. But preparing a survivor to speak to the media requires time. They need to be at a stage of their life where they’ve processed their traumatic experiences and can speak in a way that’s effective emotionally but does not harm them. It’s a long process.

BG: What does preparing the survivor involve?

KK: Survivors of trafficking often want to speak to the media because they think it’s related to justice. They think their media appearance will be used as evidence in their court case, or that a prosecutor or a judge will see it and it will help their case.

You need to lower their expectations. You should explain that they would be helping other girls and women not to become victims or to access support if they already are. They would also be helping society to become more informed. You need to clarify that these are the benefits – nothing related to their case.

Otherwise they’ll be disappointed. It’s happened to me: survivors would become disappointed with me because I encouraged them to speak to the media and it didn’t lead to anything. There was no positive outcome for them; the protection order wasn’t extended, they didn’t get custody of the children. You need to set realistic expectations about what media participation can do and what it can’t.

Another issue is safety. I tell clients to avoid mentioning specific details, which is the opposite of what journalists want. If they’re not sensitive and prepared, a journalist will ask exactly the questions they shouldn’t be asking: “did you say you come from this and that region?”, “who sold you, your first cousin or your second cousin?”, “how did you all fit in the car?” They want gory detail about the drugs, the rapes – everything.

You need to tell survivors to say only what they want to say. They should talk about what they were thinking and feeling, but avoid concrete details that may be dangerous to share. And, if possible, to say these things in ways that are not confusing to the audience. Again, survivors should have already processed their trauma and be able to speak clearly and with minimal details before they are asked to engage with the media. If I see that they can’t do this, I don’t encourage them to meet with the journalist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This interview was translated from Bulgarian by Borislav Gerasimov.