The Dangers of Unethical Reporting of Homelessness
In September, I reached out to 16-year-old Eva. She was doxxed to 1.5 million viewers by content creator Caleb Cross, an emerging YouTuber called InRealTime Interviews. In an interview that had gone viral, Cross discloses not only her location (doxxing) but also details on where she was living on the streets, prior sex work, and her struggle with addiction. Cross pans over her body while filming, leading to an outpour of degrading and sexual comments. Many left comments to confirm her location, expressing an interest in meeting her. Through this interview, Eva was put in extreme danger of violence and trafficking. I feared this violence would find her before an outreach worker.
I encouraged her to change locations quickly and contacted local homeless youth services in her area. Since then, I have reported this video, along with dozens of others. However, the reality is there are far more videos like this one, where a homeless person is being doxxed, filmed without consent, or worse. They are put in extreme danger by journalists and content creators like this one.
Homeless people, youth included, face numerous threats of violence and exploitation – both on and offline. Too often, when we see creators featuring homeless people, it involves putting someone who is already vulnerable at greater risk. As journalists and content creators, we have a responsibility to ensure we’re not doing more harm than good.
From Harmful Narratives to Better Stories
Over the course of this series, we’ve learned that there is a coordinated media machine that fuels anti-homeless rhetoric. Algorithms turn unethical reporting of homeless people, including Eva, into viral media. “Zombie content” and 24-hour livestreams reach millions, further perpetuating that propaganda. Conservative media organizations posing as experts and educators teach us that our unhoused neighbors are dangerous, hopeless, or to blame. Harmful stories created this ecosystem. But if harmful stories helped build this crisis, then ethical stories can help undo it. This is how.
The Invisible People Approach: Three Principles for Dignity-First Storytelling
The team behind Invisible People dedicates itself to these core values:
Consent: Informed, ongoing, and revocable consent ensures that we are approaching the interviewee with care and respect. Allowing them to make informed decisions about their participation also helps ensure their safety. We can do this by being transparent about our journalistic goals, where the content will be published, and the kind of response we expect from our audience.
Context: When we show nothing more than a moment of crisis, our audience members are left to their imaginations on how that crisis came to be. Because of this, we want to bring our readers on a journey. When we ask open-ended questions about how, why, or what contributed to someone’s experiences, the truth comes out. You will quickly find systematic issues at its core: a housing crisis that leaves too many without access to affordable housing, disinvestment in homeless prevention and safety nets, low wages, disability, lack of adequate and accessible healthcare and mental healthcare.
Do-no-harm: Remember that you are interacting with individuals who are living through regular, ongoing trauma on a daily basis. We want to be careful not to trigger these traumas by using trauma-informed and ethical language, acknowledging their hardships, and respecting their boundaries. We can do this by allowing those we interview to lead the conversation and listening intently, like a conversation between good friends.
How to Cover Homelessness While Prioritizing Safety and Avoiding Exploitation
Exploitation leads to violence. Homeless people are more likely to be victims of violent crimes. Because of this, we want to be careful to consider both.
Encampments and public spaces: Interviewing a homeless person can be dangerous. Be aware of your surroundings. Be careful not to share locations, especially without verbal consent. Sharing a homeless person’s location, through addresses or street signs, can invite harassment, assault, rape, robbery, and arrests to vulnerable people.
Trauma-informed interviews: We always want to be transparent about our goals and obtain their informed consent. We can do this by being up front about the quotes and images we’d like to use and where the story will be published. Respect the interviewee’s emotional boundaries and allow them to lead the conversation. Don’t push for answers or details when it’s clear they don’t want to share.
Visuals, headlines, and captions: Avoid dehumanizing language, stereotyping, and anti-homeless terminology, such as “service-resistant”. We also want to avoid “zombie” imagery, such as that seen in Kensington live cams. Don’t show interviewees in visible distress or intoxicated. Not only is it exploitative, but it also does not help our mission of undoing anti-homeless rhetoric. Dignity first, always.
Our goal is to uplift the voices of those with lived experiences, who can deliver the truth and bring us closer to understanding the systemic barriers to shelter and housing through their stories. Real-life stories of homelessness, further supported by research, can begin breaking down anti-homeless rhetoric, bringing us closer to expanding on the solutions that work.
Talking About What Actually Works (Messaging That Moves People)
Language Matters: As mentioned above, we want to avoid anti-homeless terminology. Consider that many readers may not understand the meaning behind most terms. Instead, use plain language as often as possible.
If using terminology, make sure to explain the meaning of each term. For example, while “unsheltered” typically means living outside, “unhoused” can include people living indoors in homeless shelters and motels, as well as those living outside. Sometimes the best solution is to explain without relying on terminology. Through storytelling, we can break down these terms and help our readers better understand the challenges homeless people face every day.
Reframing: Framing our messages so they not only move people but also make them think about homelessness in a new light is one of our many goals. For example, when issues around the high costs of housing and services come up, we can rebut with the even higher costs of doing nothing. Less investment in shelters, services, and housing means higher costs in places like public health, ambulances, and ER visits.
Additionally, instead of focusing solely on the ethical reasoning for ending homelessness (such as, it is simply the right thing to do), we can show readers how ending homelessness, along with addressing its primary causes, benefits us all.
We Are on the Same Team: “We have more in common with a homeless person than we do with a millionaire” is an essential message I like to share with readers. The truth is, more and more Americans are simply a paycheck away from switching places with a homeless person.
Let’s reframe our statements away from “an act of charity” and toward “this is for all of us” instead.
Questions to Ask Yourself When Evaluating Sources and ‘Experts’
It’s important to know the difference between a political commentator, a content creator, a journalist, and an expert. Most importantly, we must know the difference between propaganda and facts. For example, many mistake PragerU as an expert source on homelessness rather than a conservative, right-wing media organization pushing an agenda. Take care to research your sources.
What Makes A Real Expert? A true expert is someone who has lived experience of homelessness, has reported extensively on it, has worked to solve it, or a combination of all three.
Some examples of trustworthy sources are people with lived experience, service providers, social workers, crisis counselors, mutual aid groups, nonprofits, outreach workers, eviction prevention workers, and housing and urban planning experts.
When faced with viral media, ask yourself these questions:
- Are the homeless people in this video being treated with compassion, care, and respect?
- Is there context to this video, or is this a livestream, rage-bait, or “poverty porn”?
- Is the interviewer using trauma-informed and ethical language?
- Is the interviewer respecting emotional and physical boundaries? (i.e., forcing answers on traumatizing subjects, entering tents and living quarters without permission)
Make the Truth Louder than the Machine
Over the course of this series, we’ve examined and exposed the many parts of this media ecosystem – what drives this machine of anti-homeless rhetoric. We examined think tanks, “education” brands, rage-bait creators, and fake experts. We showed how their content trains people to fear their unhoused neighbors and vote for punishment over housing. We saw how a viral clip leads to negative comments, and how those comments fuel anti-homeless rhetoric. These same messages make their way to city hall to write anti-homeless policies. This final piece seeks to prescribe a solution. We are handing our readers the tools needed to tell a different story – one rooted in truth and dignity.
This series makes one thing clear: the way we talk about homelessness is not neutral. It can either fuel cruelty or fund solutions. The propaganda machine wants us to see tents and trauma and stop there. Our job is to show the whole truth: a housing crisis created by policy choices, and neighbors who thrive when given a real chance. You don’t need a studio or a newsroom to push back. You have a phone, a voice, and now, a toolkit. Use them. Share ethical stories—correct bad information. Lift up people with lived experience. Support the policies and programs that actually work.
We can’t turn off the propaganda machine overnight—but together, we can make the truth louder.
This is Part 6, the final installment in Invisible People’s series on the media machine behind anti-homeless rhetoric. Here are links to Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5. Please share this series to help us make the truth louder.