Navigating Sensitive Stories: A Guide to Ethical Engagement with Vulnerable Sources

Drawing on over a decade of investigative reporting experience, this practical guide by Stavros Malichudis in collaboration with Tactical Tech offers concrete steps in working with vulnerable sources.

by Stavros Malichudis

Introduction

How should journalists and researchers approach sources who have experienced trauma? How can they do so in a way that avoids unintentionally re-traumatising them? And how can we build trust, and make sure that individuals willing to share important information with us will not be targeted or face other negative consequences?

As an investigative reporter and editor for over a decade, I have worked closely with vulnerable sources in the field. I have spoken to shipwreck survivors; victims of violent state collective expulsions known as ‘pushbacks’; exploited land workers and call center agents; unaccompanied minors who lived on the street or had been detained for up to 48 hours in secret ‘prisons,’ which were passenger ferries running between Italy and Greece; residents who lost their neighbors and their houses in a massive fire outside of Athens in the summer of 2018; locals whose loved ones were among the 64 people who died in 2020 in a care home in Crete, Greece; mothers in Greece and Germany whose sons [were killed by neo-Nazis](https://wearesolomon.com/mag/format/interview/their-sons-were-murdered-by-neo-nazis-now-they-vow-to-keep-their-memory-alive/; and administration and industry insiders who became whistleblowers.

This guide draws on these experiences to address ethical concerns that span the entire investigative project lifestyle, from initial design, to implementation, and finally to engaging audiences in the post-publication phase.

Pre-reporting phase

1. Understand which sources are vulnerable

First, we need to have a clear understanding of the many diverse roles and identities that a ‘vulnerable source’ can belong to. A ‘vulnerable source’ could be, but is not limited to:

• An undocumented worker or a person on the move (migrant);
• A person who lost a loved one in an accident;
• A person who lost their property in a natural disaster; and
• A whistleblower on the brink of exposing misconduct or mistreatment within a company, a state agency, or an international organisation

Focusing on vulnerable voices should be the standard practice for any story striving to illuminate underreported issues and hold power accountable. Vulnerable sources can enlighten perspectives, for both the researcher and the reader, by offering the opportunity to perceive a situation as thoroughly and holistically as possible.

Including vulnerable sources in your research isn't just about doing the right thing; it's also about better research. While many stories highlight the usual prominent voices, tapping into those often overlooked can uncover fresh, underexplored perspectives. It's a powerful way to make your work more inclusive and insightful.

But for these individuals, speaking to a researcher carries significant risk. Depending on their status, they could face job loss, retaliation or community rejection, risk of arrest, and more.

Given the stakes, researchers serving the public interest with their investigations have an ethical duty to protect the sources of their work. The rest of this guide presents a curated list of best practices to help researchers incorporate the voices of vulnerable sources while minimising potential harm.

2. Do your research before approaching vulnerable sources

Before establishing contact with an individual or a community, it’s vital that some time is dedicated to pre-reporting. Ask yourself: What do you know about the person you are willing to approach or the community they are part of? Do you have a basic understanding of the community’s manners or customs? A basic overview of the individual’s story?

Dedicate some time to answer these questions and gather some basic, initial information. This can be done through searching online, making phone calls to experts, and asking colleagues.

A good first impression can save both parties from awkward situations. It can also help create a first layer of trust; people appreciate it when others have made the effort to learn things about them.

For communities:

Research the communities you are approaching, and treat them with respect by adhering to their customs. Demonstrate that you have done your due diligence and establish that this is a source-researcher relationship you are interested in building.

For instance, in some cultures men do not greet women with a handshake. In other cultures, for example, refusing to accept a drink that someone offers can be seen as lack of respect. These cultural circumstances can be difficult to navigate at times, as you balance your specific risk assessment and safety concerns with cultural practices in certain contexts (such as the fear of being poisoned by a potential adversary). Above all, try not to take cultural differences for granted—it’s vital to adapt to and enter each context with as much care and awareness as possible.

For individuals:

Again, research as much as possible beforehand. Demonstrate that you took the time to learn about whoever you are approaching. If that person carries with them a traumatic experience, thorough research before meeting them can help avoid re-traumatisation. A journalist's due diligence involves gathering as much context as possible to understand what is at stake for the source.

When I first worked on the story of the care home in Crete, Greece, where 64 people died in a single year, some of the relatives who lost loved ones had already talked to the media. Having read their interviews, when I met with them I was able to ask more targeted questions to get the most insightful information. Having an idea of the chain of events, I also had the opportunity to treat traumatic memories with more care.

Doing as much research as possible can help you show sources that you took the time to learn them, stick to the facts when it comes to traumatic experiences, and respectfully acknowledge the pain people share. While a long-standing saying in journalism says that there are no stupid questions, perhaps the only stupid question that could be posed to a vulnerable source is one that will unnecessarily make them re-experience their trauma.

3. Plan your initial approach

Often, the best way to approach sources who might be hesitant to talk to you is through people who can vouch for your integrity, your credibility, and your ethical standards.

These could be mutual acquaintances, like an NGO that you have worked with before. Or, perhaps you know members of the same community who can introduce you to your potential source.

If the individual has a public social media profile, you can search for possible common connections. This allows for a smoother approach, as well as a better informed pre-reporting phase.

4. Recognise the power balance between you and your sources.

Researchers should clearly understand the power dynamics at play when working with vulnerable sources. A vulnerable source inherently holds less power than a reporter. This imbalance can stem from a source's level of wealth or income, legal status, social standing, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or other factors.

Researchers need to take power imbalances in mind when designing an investigation. They must have in mind the insecure position of their source, their ethical duty to protect them and treat them with care, and the possible challenges that may arise during the research phase, and beyond.

Research phase

1. First approach: explain yourself

The success of a research project involving vulnerable sources often comes down to how you explain yourself, the process you follow, the outcomes of the research project, and any possible implications such as short or long-term risks posed to your sources in this case.

Vulnerable sources are entitled to clear explanations of the above, as early on as possible in the process.

Researchers should keep in mind that their sources may not be familiar with their research or its possible implications. Researchers need to provide this context themselves and explain each aspect of a research project as needed.

As early as possible in the process, researchers must seek agreement with sources on these major aspects:

The nature and level of involvement:

What is it exactly that you want to gain from your sources? Will this require a single interview or a series of meetings? Should they also expect phone calls from you? Do you expect them to be available for a set period of time, e.g., for the duration of a trial? Is your editor, a photographer, or a fact-checker going to call them later on?

The duration and timing of the engagement:

Very often, vulnerable sources contribute to time-sensitive research projects. For instance, when investigating how governments and organisations used funds provided by the EU for the accommodation of asylum seekers, I met a family who stayed in one of these housing units in Athens. The NGO responsible for them was receiving millions of euros from the EU, but photos the family captured showed that conditions inside their apartment were horrific. They wanted to expose the conditions, but it was best for them to do so after they had left the apartment, due to a fear of being identified.

Similar conditions may occur when a company whistleblower wishes to denounce internal processes. It may be better to publish any material only after vulnerable sources have left these environments. Time of publication should be agreed upon early on to avoid frustration on both sides. No surprises!

The format:

When you interview a vulnerable source, will you quote them in full, or will you rephrase or paraphrase their words? Before recording a source’s voice or likeness through photos or videos, always obtain informed consent, taking care to explain how this material will be used. When recording their voice, for example, state from the outset whether it is strictly for your own note-taking or for inclusion in the publication of the story.

Publication details:

Where will the story be published, and in what context? In what languages and formats will the outcome be available?

Fact-checking:

Information provided by vulnerable sources, in fact by any sources, must be corroborated independently. This can be tiring or disappointing for people who share their trauma with you. Consider the Pylos shipwreck, the largest in the Mediterranean in recent years, which claimed the lives of over 600 men, women, and children. Some survivors said they had stayed in the water for an hour before a Greek Coast Guard vessel came to their rescue. Others said it was closer to half an hour. While probing such details can feel insensitive given the immense suffering, these discrepancies still require meticulous fact-checking.

For sources unfamiliar with journalistic processes, it's crucial to explain that independent verification is paramount to upholding the integrity and validity of any investigation. This transparent communication also means being clear that some information, no matter how personally significant, may not be included in the final report if it cannot be independently verified.

Clarifying these aspects in advance can help you manage expectations, maintain trust, and mitigate frustrations.

2. Let them know they are also in control

All human relations come with power dynamics. Usually, journalists have power over sources, as they ultimately decide what to include in a piece or not. But with sources, especially vulnerable sources, it’s important to know that they are also in control of their own story.

One of the first steps I follow when working with vulnerable sources is to make clear to them that they have the option to decide if specific information shared with me is on the record, off the record, or on background. In other words, if they don’t want to answer a specific question, they don’t have to.

They should also have the opportunity to pause an interview, if at any time they feel the need to do so. As researchers, we should show patience. Give them the time and space they need, and don’t pressure them. Resist the urge to fill pauses, or periods of silence.

If a discussion touches on tragic events, don’t just keep pushing for answers. Take a break when the person seems distressed or simply wants to stop.

3. Give it time

In 2019, during a months-long investigative project, I was tracking unaccompanied migrant children in Greece. These kids faced unimaginable challenges; some had experienced homelessness, others had been detained in police stations for months.

As I worked to build trust and gather information, my editor offered a brilliant piece of advice: “just hang out with them.” No recording, no note-taking, just hanging out. Do what they do. Spend an afternoon with them, then another, without the pressure of collecting material for the written piece I had in mind.

This approach was illuminating. It allowed me to visualise and truly understand the humanity of my potential sources first. It fostered a more natural, less rushed relationship, letting things unfold organically. Investigations, especially with vulnerable sources, demand time.

That fellowship taught me a crucial lesson about building trust. When sources sense genuine care for their story, they often become your strongest advocates, introducing you to others and vouching for your credibility. It's a powerful ripple effect that extends far beyond any single interview.

4. Explain the possible implications

Letting vulnerable sources know they’re also in control is related to your responsibility to inform them about the possible implications that may arise for them by speaking to you.

For instance, a few years back I worked on an investigation exposing labor exploitation and racism in a call-center giant in Greece. One of the main sources, an ex-employee of the company, insisted on speaking on the record. Although it’s always better for the validity of an investigation that sources speak on the record, it was my duty back then to inform the person that, given the practices in that specific sector, speaking publicly against the industry’s major company could mean that employers in his sector would no longer want him at their company.

The source took a few days to think on this. He decided to still do it, as he saw his professional future in an entirely unrelated field. It was his choice in the end, but it was my responsibility to provide context that he wasn’t necessarily aware of.

In other cases, when a source shares potentially identifying or incriminating information, it is imperative that a researcher might ask: “Are you sure you want to share this?”This reminds the source of the risks and empowers them to decide what to share and withhold.

5. Don’t create expectations

“Why should I speak to you?” - This is a question I often get from residents of refugee camps across Greece. - “You do your story, what will I get?”

Vulnerable sources might be in dire need of financial aid or of state documents that could make their life move forward, to name just two examples. You might be asking them to talk to you at a time when they feel their life is falling apart.

Researchers should make sure not to exploit the hopes of vulnerable sources. Simply put, don’t offer things in return for information, and don’t promise what you cannot deliver.

It is imperative to explain that the actual impact of your story, especially for the individual’s own story, might be limited. But you should also explain that your research will contribute to holding power to account, and may contribute to a wider impact beyond this one story.

While you may not be in a position to help them get certain documents, you can help them in other ways, like to let them know which NGOs offer legal support or to tell them what you know about labor inspections.

6. Ensure physical safety when meeting in person

Are sources talking to you at risk if someone sees them with a reporter or a researcher? Would source protection be compromised?

Physical safety during meetings demands careful planning. Be sure to consider:

• Awareness of Surroundings: Ensure you are not being followed. Have a good understanding of the area you are in.

• Discreet Meeting Locations: Avoid places where you could be easily seen. If meeting at a café, choose a seat with a direct view of the entrance. Avoid outdoor seating where you might be visible to individuals you cannot see.

• Location Privacy: If using taxis or ride-sharing apps to meet a vulnerable source, avoid mentioning or inputting the exact meeting address directly into the app. You can ride to a walking distance address, and get on foot from there.

• Mobile Device Protocols: When meeting sensitive sources, consider not carrying your mobile phone or disabling GPS to protect their safety, even if you perceive no personal risk.

• Inform your source: Share with your source the different steps you take to ensure their protection. This can help build trust among the two parties, but it can also lead to valuable feedback on the specifics.

7. Ensure digital safety

In-person meetings are not the only form of communication in need of security. Securing digital communication is also paramount. This includes:

• Password Protection: Keep your phone password-protected.

• Auto-Delete Messages: Utilise features that automatically delete messages. Most applications (like Signal, WhatsApp) have this feature.

• Encrypted Communication: Avoid standard phone lines and SMS. Prioritise encrypted messaging apps like Signal, which is favored by researchers and academics due to its strong security.

• End-to-End Encryption: Opt for services designed with privacy, where end-to-end encryption is standard, ensuring only you and your source can read messages.

8. Handle documents securely

For sensitive investigations, physical transfer of documents can sometimes be the safest method, such as through mail or direct delivery. Physical transfer doesn’t leave metadata. Edits can’t be tracked. This was reportedly how Edward Snowden provided documents to reporters, according to "Snowden's Box: Trust in the Age of Surveillance" by Jessica Bruder and Dale Maharidge, two experienced journalists who worked behind the scenes of the Snowden story. As the summary of the book notes, "The biggest national security leak of the digital era was launched via a remarkably analog network, the US Postal Service."

If a source provides you with a document, you have to make sure that you properly anonymise it in case you wish to publish it together with your investigation or share it with others outside your fully trusted team. Make sure you really anonymise it. Don’t just cover content with blacked out text boxes that can be removed from the file! Image edits with specific tools can be tracked, as can metadata of the files, so one needs to very carefully work on this to ensure full source protection.

Of course, file and data anonymisation has its drawbacks. Often it means altering evidence, so you will need to make sure you safely preserve original, unaltered versions of files for any possible situations that might arise, including, for example, court procedures.    

In 2022, after months of investigation, Greece's National Transparency Authority (NTA) released a redacted report addressing allegations of illegal pushbacks of asylum seekers. The report's conclusion: no such pushbacks had occurred. However, researchers quickly discovered a critical flaw: basic digital design tools were all that was needed to remove the blacked-out sections intended to protect the anonymity of the report's sources, thereby compromising the identities of the individuals who had informed the research.

9. Show empathy in interviews

When interviewing vulnerable sources, traditional journalistic approaches—like quickly shifting between topics—can inadvertently inflict further harm. Instead, a more deliberate and structured interview approach is crucial.

Before a sensitive interview, it's vital to carefully plan the progression of your questions. The goal is to guide the source through difficult topics efficiently, ensuring they only have to recount painful experiences a single time. For example, a parent discussing the loss of a child should ideally only need to recall the specifics of their child's death once during the conversation.

10. Keep showing up

Vulnerable sources often go to extraordinary lengths to provide information for investigative projects. Yet, once the research phase concludes, contact frequently ceases. This abrupt disengagement can leave sources feeling exploited, deepening a sense that they were merely a means to an end for a story, especially when their personal realities remain unchanged.

Imagine a journalist who maintains daily contact with a source for weeks, only to vanish once the story is filed. This sudden absence can breed resentment and a profound sense of betrayal.

Consider the devastating Mati fire, which claimed 104 lives in the outskirts of Athens in the summer of 2018. Both national and international media swarmed the area. Some reporters and crews stayed and covered the tragedy for up to three months. However, as new events unfolded in Greece and elsewhere, the journalistic gaze shifted, and many moved on, never to return.

My former colleague, Tasos Telloglou of Inside Story, chose a different path. He continued to visit Mati long after the initial media frenzy subsided. A year later, when we began working together on follow-up stories about the fire's aftermath, I - despite being new to the community - was granted immediate access and full trust. They didn’t know me; this was solely because I was collaborating with him. Tasos had earned that trust by consistently making the drive to Mati when no one else did.

His dedication was an illuminating example of how genuine care for a community's story and its ongoing realities, in stark contrast to extractive "parachute journalism," can build enduring trust and the whole different set of investigative possibilities this can bring.

Post-publication phase

Researchers and investigative reporters tend to jump from project to project. But for the vulnerable sources that contributed to an investigation, their everyday lives continue.

Even reporters who carefully follow specific steps during the pre-reporting and the reporting phase of investigative projects may overlook the importance of the post-publication phase.

It is also worth keeping in mind that while veteran researchers might not feel like the days following publication are special, sources who are unfamiliar with the investigative process may feel differently. They can feel pressure, might think they have been exposed, or even regret having talked to someone. After publishing a story, keep the following steps in mind.

1. Share the story

Is the story finally out? Send it to your sources. Don’t let them find it via social media, or hear about it from other acquaintances. Even worse, don’t let them find out the story has been published only days later. Thank them once more for their contribution to the investigation and explain to them the story’s significance.

2. Feedback

Don’t just send your sources the story and leave it at that. Ask them what they think of it. While you may not be in a position to make major changes after publication, it’s important to learn how they viewed their contribution to the story. Are their concerns properly framed in it? Do they feel that your portrayal of their reality was just?

3. Remain Accessible

Journalists and researchers often disappear after publication, which can make vulnerable sources hesitant to trust not just them, but all journalists in the future. Be reachable to your sources, follow up on their well-being, and do not vanish. Working with people on the move in Greece for several years now, I often have sources of stories asking me why other journalists stopped replying to messages after they had opened their houses to them, had coffee with them, or shared childhood photos with them. Sources who have experienced these ‘parachute journalists’, will find it more difficult to trust researchers in the future and will feel that they were taken advantage of or used.

Credits and Licensing

• Author: Stavros Malichudis
• Editorial support & copy-editing: Tyler McBrien, Laura Ranca, Jasmine Erkan
• Illustration & design: Exposing the Invisible

CC BY-SA 4.0 - This article is published by Tactical Tech's Exposing the Invisible (ETI) project, and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license

Contact us with questions or suggestions: eti-at-tacticaltech.org (GPG Key / fingerprint: BD30 C622 D030 FCF1 38EC C26D DD04 627E 1411 0C02).

About the author: Stavros Malichudis is a reporter and editor. He has worked for the Agence France-Presse and inside story, and has participated in cross-border investigations with Lighthouse Reports and Investigate Europe. He’s member of Reporters United. His reports have been published in European media. He was shortlisted for the European Press Prize ‘21 and won the IJ4EU Impact Award ‘22. In 2019 he was selected as a fellow for BIRN's Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence (BFJE). He has been trained in data journalism at Columbia University in New York on a fellowship.

This content is part of the resources produced under the Collaborative and Investigative Journalism Initiative.

Disclaimer:

Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.