Children of trauma: How not to document pain

“Wasn’t there even one nice person there?” 

“Do you suffer from panic attacks?” 

“Your father is no longer alive, yet it’s so important to you that he return – why?” 

These and similar invasive questions have been directed at survivors of captivity, particularly women, and even worse, at children in media interviews over the past year since the events of October 7, 2023.

Well before the carnage of that day, documentation initiatives using oral history were widely seen as critical to preserving memory. Oral history focuses on the testimonies and memories of individuals who witnessed or were personally involved in historical events. The method is often used to document the experiences of communities or sectors that are typically underrepresented in written records, offering diverse perspectives on history.

Yet, unlike formally structured documentation projects, media interviews are often used to highlight the trauma, sometimes not aware of the devastating impact these interviews can have on their subjects, especially children. Tragically, children were among the victims of the horrific events in October and their aftermath. Some were taken hostage and returned, some still have family members in captivity, and others witnessed the brutal killings of their loved ones. Many have endured unfathomable trauma. It’s hard to miss the interviews of these child survivors, broadcast across all media platforms immediately after the events and continuing to this day. For these children – as for all of us – the trauma of October is far from over.

From a legal standpoint, no explicit law is being broken. The Youth (Care and Supervision) Law of 1960 largely views children as vulnerable individuals in need of protection. Section 24 of the law provides safeguards against harmful publications, particularly regarding minors involved in offenses related to sexual violence or abuse. Curiously, however, the law exempts child victims of terrorism, allowing their stories to be publicized without court approval. But even where the law may not intervene, should we, as a society, allow anything and everything?

On the other hand, should protecting children place them off limits to any media exposure? The idea of children as rights-bearing individuals is enshrined in their “right of participation,” as stated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means children should be involved in discussions and decisions about their lives, including the preservation of collective memory and the shaping of the national narrative following the events of October 7. Respectful inclusion of children in these processes can offer them a sense of regained control over their lives. But interviewing child victims of trauma requires an especially delicate and professional approach to ensure their safety and prevent further harm.

It’s important to remember that everyone has the “right to be forgotten” – the right to return to anonymity. In the digital age, where our “digital bodies” (social media profiles and online personas) are often inseparable from our physical selves, realizing this right can be particularly challenging. What happens when children who agreed to tell their stories later want to retreat into privacy? We must ensure that their pain, trauma, and suffering do not continue to define them.

Conducting responsible interviews with child trauma victims requires advance preparation and careful consideration of the child’s emotional state and the circumstances surrounding the trauma. Language must be age-appropriate, with a simple pre-interview explanation of its purpose and process. Informed consent should be obtained, ensuring the child understands their right to withdraw at any time, potentially limited to a specific timeframe if necessary. The interview environment should be safe and distraction-free, fostering a calm atmosphere and trust. Sensitivity to signs of distress is crucial, and pausing or ending the interview should be considered if needed, with referral to professional caregivers when appropriate. A neutral stance and absence of judgment are essential, and a child psychologist or social worker may be present for support, as well as a trusted adult if that provides added security. Interviewers should also be professionally trained in interviewing children with trauma to appreciate the complexity involved.

By following these principles, we can minimize the potential emotional harm. But even after taking all these precautions, as a public that has collectively experienced trauma, we must still ask ourselves: Should these types of interviews be broadcast on prime-time TV, or should they remain part of carefully curated documentary projects? Even after they grant informed consent, can we truly regard the consent of children who are still processing trauma, or who are focused on bringing their family members home from captivity, as fully informed? 

These thorny questions may not have clear or definitive answers, but, for the sake of our children’s mental health and wellbeing, they deserve careful consideration. The unique challenges that the events of October have presented to us as a society may even require expanded legal protections for young victims. Hopefully, lawmakers will take notice.