In Part I, Amantha Perera\u2014Ph.D. candidate at Adelaide University and Director and Consultant at the Centre for Journalism and Trauma (CJT, formerly the Dart Centre Asia Pacific) in Australia\u2014delivered a lecture titled \u201cGet me my Digital Flak Jacket!\u201d Perera has worked as a newspaper reporter and freelance journalist in his home country of Sri Lanka, covering the civil war and the devastation caused by the 2004 tsunami, contributing to outlets such as TIME magazine and the Guardian. He is currently pursuing a doctoral degree at Adelaide University, where he is researching the development of safe and professional hybrid workspaces for information professionals.<\/p>\n
His commitment to examining trauma- informed journalism, as well as the safety of journalists, was shaped by a deeply personal turning point: the killing of his editor who he greatly admired. Struggling to contain his own anger, he sought ways to understand his reactions and eventually sought help from the former Dart Centre, which had been providing awareness and skills on trauma and journalism. At the conclusion of Part I, participants at the venue observed a moment of silence in memory of his late editor and other journalists around the world who have lost their lives in the line of duty.<\/p>\n
Summary of the lecture<\/strong><\/p>\n It has become increasingly difficult for journalists to work\u2014or even maintain personal relationships\u2014without smartphones and other digital devices, to the point that many now keep their phones at their bedside. In an environment where complete disconnection from the digital sphere is no longer feasible, we are continually exposed to technology facilitated threats (TFTs). These threats arise not only during information gathering, processing, and dissemination but also through interactions with readers and audiences.<\/p>\n Such threats take two forms. The first are explicit threats, which involve a clear intent to harm, and the second are ambiguous threats, which may cause distress despite lacking malicious intent, such as graphic footage sent from conflict zones. Both types can have significant psychological impact. Research increasingly shows that online and hybrid threats can be just as harmful as offline ones. Exposure to traumatic content and impact can erode a person\u2019s capacity to express themselves, and when journalists lose their voice, the consequences can be far\u2011reaching.<\/p>\n As these \u201ctechnology facilitated threats\u201d continue to grow, developing the skills to recognize and understand them has become essential. This is the context in which I propose the concept of a \u201cDigital Flak Jacket\u201d\u2014a simple framework designed to help not only journalists but other information professionals work more safely and sustainably in digital and hybrid work environments.<\/p>\n The \u201cDigital Flak Jacket\u201d encourages individuals to analyze the TFTs they face by applying the 5W1H framework, enabling them to identify and assess their specific risks.<\/p>\n <The 5W1H Framework><\/p>\n W1: Where W2: On what W3: When and where or off duty? At home or working elsewhere? Does the threat tend to occur in specific locations?<\/span><\/p>\n W4: Why W5: Who H1: How Perera encouraged participants to recall a specific threat they had encountered and to write out the 5W1H for that incident. The countermeasures do not need to be elaborate\u2014simple, self\u2011directed actions are sufficient. For example, blocking the perpetrator may be enough. In his own case, when a digitally manipulated image of him was circulated on Facebook for commercial purposes, he contacted Facebook staff directly and had it removed when the platform\u2019s machine reliant moderation mechanism failed.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cDigital Flak Jacket\u201d is most effective when built upon balanced and mindful engagement with digital and online spaces. This includes maintaining as clear a boundary as possible between personal and professional use, taking regular breaks, and being mindful of one\u2019s well\u2011being. Because enclosed spaces can increase immersion and stress, Perera noted that those who work with their screens facing a wall may benefit from rearranging their workspace so that their field of view opens onto a broader environment. Part II \u2013 Report 1: \u201cThe impact on journalists covering trauma \u2014 Findings from a Japan\u2013Korea survey\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Part II began with a presentation by Associate Professor Lee Misook (Otsuma Women\u2019s University) titled \u201cThe impact on journalists covering trauma \u2014 Findings from a Japan\u2013Korea survey.\u201d<\/p>\n Lee explained that discussions on trauma and journalists first emerged in the English\u2011speaking world in relation to Vietnam War correspondents, who exhibited symptoms such as dissociation and substance use. By the 1990s, these issues came to be understood as structural problems inherent in the profession. At the same time, however, a professional culture persisted that insisted journalists \u201cshould be tough,\u201d discouraging acknowledgment of psychological impact. In reality, many journalists and photojournalists routinely encounter scenes of catastrophe and individuals who have experienced trauma, leaving them vulnerable to feelings of helplessness and self\u2011blame.<\/p>\n Lee began by clarifying the significance of trauma\u2011informed journalism. She emphasized that it is not only an ethical responsibility toward trauma survivors, but also essential for journalists\u2019 own well\u2011being and ability to function as healthy professionals. When survivors feel safer and more respected in the interview process, reporting can yield deeper insight and greater empathy. This, in turn, supports meaningful civic engagement, contributes to institutional reform, and strengthens survivors\u2019 resilience.<\/p>\n Drawing on previous research, Lee highlighted several key findings regarding the harm journalists experience:<\/p>\n 1. Early intervention is crucial. In the 21st century, surveys conducted in both Japan and South Korea have further illuminated the stress reactions, feelings of helplessness, and concerns about possibly having harmed interviewees experienced by journalists covering traumatic events. In a recent South Korean study, 80 percent of respondents answered \u201cno\u201d when asked whether they had received appropriate training prior to engaging in trauma reporting. While gender differences were generally minimal, one clear exception emerged: in cases involving coverage of sexual violence, women were more than twice as likely as men to indicate in the survey that they had experienced trauma\u2011related events connected to their reporting.<\/p>\n Earlier surveys in Japan showed that over 90 percent of respondents were male. Given the significant changes in the information environment since then, Lee noted that she is planning a new study to examine the realities of traumatic experiences among journalists in Japan in the digital age.<\/p>\n Part II \u2013 Report 2: Report on the Australia training and \u201cOur Declaration\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n In the second report, Aya Shioiri (The Asahi Shimbun) and Miki Kato (The Chunichi Shimbun)\u2014members of the \u201cAssociation of Journalists in Japan Learning about Trauma Reporting\u201d \u2014presented an overview of the training they attended in Australia in August 2025 at the Dart Centre Asia Pacific (renamed the Centre for Journalism and Trauma in November 2025). Following their presentation, Naoko Sato (The Tokyo Shimbun), Midori Kawamura (Jiji Press), and Akiko Minatoya (Jiji Press) reported on the group\u2019s post\u2011training initiatives and introduced \u201cOur Declaration.\u201d<\/p>\n The four\u2011day program covered a wide range of practical topics, including online harassment, interviewing trauma survivors, moral injury, and peer support. Shioiri noted that the training was impactful not only for its lectures but also for its experiential components. These included paired role\u2011plays of \u201cgood interviews\u201d and \u201cpoor interviews,\u201d which allowed participants to step into the emotional perspective of interviewees. Each participant also delivered a presentation on a personally meaningful reporting experience, helping them appreciate the importance of being heard in a safe, non\u2011judgmental environment.<\/p>\n Kato later wrote about the training in a two\u2011part feature column for the Chunichi Shimbun (Chunichi Shimbun, morning edition of 21 December 2025, \u201cReflecting on Trauma Reporting, Part I: Must Journalists Be \u2018Tough\u2019?\u201d; and morning edition of 28 December 2025, \u201cReflecting on Trauma Reporting, Part II: Reporting Without Harming, Without Being Harmed.\u201d). She had anticipated criticism, believing that journalists were not supposed to speak about their own distress\u2014especially when survivors themselves endure far greater suffering. Instead, she received messages from readers expressing sentiments such as, \u201cIt is precisely because journalists are not invulnerable that they can notice, empathize with, and imagine the experiences of those in vulnerable positions.\u201d Fellow journalists also responded, saying, \u201cI, too, felt unable to speak about this,\u201d and \u201cThis kind of training is urgently needed.\u201d<\/p>\n Kato also explained a concept introduced during the training: \u201cPut the power in the middle.\u201d Because trauma inherently strips individuals of power, trauma\u2011informed reporting requires placing power\u2014meaning agency and decision\u2011making\u2014between the journalist and the interviewee. This involves, for example, discussing together where the interview should take place or whether breaks are needed, and proceeding in a way that respects the interviewee\u2019s preferences. She shared the story of a bereaved family member who had once been interviewed by a young reporter. The reporter admitted it was his first time conducting an interview with a grieving family. Because of this openness, the interviewee felt able to express her wish not to be photographed while crying, and the two of them worked out how to proceed. She later said she was grateful to have been listened to, and that this experience shaped her approach to future interactions with the media.<\/p>\n In the latter half of the session, members reported on how they had begun sharing what they learned after returning to Japan, including conducting role\u2011plays within their newsrooms. The group then discussed what commitments they should carry forward as journalists trained in trauma\u2011informed practice. The principles they collectively formulated were presented as \u201cOur Declaration\u201d by Sato, Kawamura, and Minatoya.<\/p>\n <Our Declaration><\/p>\n For the sake of better journalism, we commit to the following principles in trauma reporting:<\/p>\n 1. We strive to engage with interviewees on an equal footing. The presenters elaborated on each of these points. The final principle\u2014\u201cWe work to expand the community of people who understand and value trauma\u2011informed reporting\u201d\u2014includes commitments such as: continuing to share the importance of trauma\u2011informed reporting with colleagues and supervisors; building connections beyond the media industry; and, in the long term, contributing to changes in reporting practices and journalistic culture.<\/p>\n At the end of Part II, Michiko Kawahara, Chair of the Trauma Reporting Study Group, delivered closing remarks titled \u201cAs We Bring the Trauma Reporting Study Group to a Close.\u201d In her remarks, she expressed her commitment to helping transform journalistic culture into one that is more humane and compassionate through the kinds of practices discussed today.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On 14 February 2026, the Trauma Reporting Research<\/p>\n
\nOn which platform did the threat occur? For example, was it on Facebook, in a chat group, or elsewhere?<\/p>\n
\nThrough which device did the threat reach you\u2014your smartphone, your computer, or another device?<\/p>\n
\nWhen and where did it happen? Was it a one\u2011time incident or ongoing? Were you on duty<\/p>\n
\nWhy were you exposed to the content? Were you viewing it for work, for personal reasons, out of curiosity, or simply out of habit?<\/p>\n
\nWho was with you at the time? Were you alone, with colleagues or family members, or surrounded by strangers?<\/p>\n
\nFinally, reflect on what you can control and how you can exercise that control.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/baiforum.jp\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/trauma01-244x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nHe concluded by encouraging participants to identify practical, applicable steps they can take to protect themselves in their own digital work environments.<\/p>\n
\n2. Moral injury\u2014the distress that arises when one\u2019s moral beliefs or ethical values are profoundly violated, or when one is unable to act in accordance with what one believes is right\u2014has a significant impact on journalists\u2019 sense of identity and existential well\u2011being.
\n3. Journalists who have received education on trauma or training in trauma\u2011informed reporting show greater potential for post\u2011traumatic growth.
\n4. Lack of organizational support contributes to worsening symptoms.
\n5. Incidents of online harassment are increasing worldwide.<\/p>\n
\n2. We make efforts to follow up after interviews.
\n3. We value self\u2011care.
\n4. We support one another as colleagues.
\n5. We work to expand the community of people who understand and value trauma\u2011informed reporting.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/baiforum.jp\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Trauma02-300x199.jpg\")
<\/p>\n