One statistic that should change how journalists cover domestic violence
by: Heather Gehlert
posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2026
Most journalists want to report on domestic violence in ways that inform the public without causing further harm to survivors and their loved ones. But doing that well isn’t always straightforward — especially when it comes to centering survivor experiences.
This tension may underlie a key gap in coverage: A news analysis from Berkeley Media Studies Group found that between 2023 and 2025, just one in five California news stories about domestic violence included a quote or anecdote from a survivor.
“This missing perspective is critical,” said Rachael Kagan, director of communications and public affairs at Blue Shield of California Foundation, which supported the research as part of a larger effort to improve reporting on domestic violence. “We can’t expect the public to fully understand the scope of the problem, let alone what solutions are possible, if we aren’t hearing from the people who are most directly affected. Now that we know just how underrepresented survivor voices are, we can work with journalists to make coverage more inclusive.”
To learn more about the new research findings, their implications for domestic violence news narratives, and how reporters can include survivor voices safely and responsibly, I spoke with Pamela Mejia, lead author of the analysis. Responses have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Q&A
BMSG’s analysis found that only about one in five news stories included a quote or anecdote from a survivor. What’s your reaction to that finding? Did it surprise you?
Advocates and people in the field have known for a long time that domestic violence tends to be under-reported, certainly compared to its actual prevalence. And when it is reported, some real opportunities are lost to bring the full picture forward of what domestic violence is, how it affects families, how it affects communities, and what needs to happen to prevent it — and support people who’ve experienced it. So I knew that there was going to be an absence of some kind, but I was taken aback by how stark it was.
My immediate reaction was to wonder what stories aren’t being told if domestic violence survivors are really absent from the coverage. What do we not learn about the full truth of domestic violence and its impact on families and communities if the people who are most directly impacted — the people who are closest to not only the experience of domestic violence, but also the services and systems that can help address and prevent domestic violence — if they’re not part of the story?
How does a lack of survivor-centered reporting affect how audiences understand domestic violence?
Important nuances get lost when survivors are not part of the story. For one thing, statistics can paint a picture of domestic violence, but people’s understanding of the issue is limited when we don’t hear more about the range of experiences that comprise domestic violence, from coercion and emotional and verbal abuse all the way up to more explicit and extreme acts of physical abuse or even death.
Stigma is also an issue. If survivors aren’t allowed to tell their own stories, some of the well-documented patterns of stigmatizing language and framing that we know tend to be part of news coverage of domestic violence, those aren’t challenged. We know from decades of research that domestic violence reporting historically tends to minimize harm by characterizing incidents as, for example, a fight that got out of hand, or suggesting that there was blame on both sides of an incident. And when survivors don’t get a chance to share their experiences, that kind of implicitly stigmatizing language goes unchecked and uncorrected.
The other thing I would say is that survivors are not only experts in the trauma of what happened to them; survivors also know best what can help prevent domestic violence from happening. They know best what their families need to heal, and they know best how the services and supports in our state succeed or fail the survivors and the families who need them the most. Including survivors gives us a deeper understanding of what we need to do as families, as communities, and as a state to treat and prevent domestic violence.
Did your analysis uncover examples where survivor voices were included particularly well? If so, what made those stories feel different or more complete?
We did find a few examples, which are highlighted in the report, where survivor’s voices were included. And I think the strongest examples were the ones that touched on the duality that I named, not only painting a fuller picture of the problem but also highlighting the lived wisdom of people advocating for solutions. These stories brought some texture and lived experience to the realities of what domestic violence means, how it impacts families — that it’s not just a private family issue that we can turn away from, but actually something that affects whole communities and has far reaching and long-ranging impacts. The strongest examples of survivor voices were also ones where people were able to talk about what they had needed or what worked or didn’t work for them in seeking support, in getting out of a bad situation, in taking care of their children and themselves.
Many journalists worry about retraumatizing survivors. How can reporters include survivor perspectives ethically?
I really love this question because domestic violence is an area where a lot of folks are already thinking about and working on how to tell more complete stories that center survivor voices in ways that are trauma-informed, that are focused on the needs of survivors and ensuring that they have a platform without experiencing additional harm as a result of using that platform.
One of the things that really drew me to this project and made me so excited to be able to say, “yes, let’s partner on this with the Blue Shield of California Foundation,” is that they are creating practical resources. Their Journalist Playbook for reporting on domestic violence includes trauma-informed interviewing practices and a lot of really great insights from journalists in the field about how to support survivors, going from the big-picture to the very nitty-gritty, right? It addresses challenges like how do you show up in a room with survivors? How do you ask questions ahead of time that can give folks a sense of control and make sure that there’s no surprises for them in the course of an interview? I think that kind of guidance is really key.
I also want to lift up resources from our partners at the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. They’ve really been doing incredible work to support California-based survivors in building their skills and talking to the media, and also in working with journalists to ensure that reporters are being thought partners in making sure that survivors are safe and cared for as they’re interviewed.
What role can domestic violence organizations play in helping reporters navigate this responsibly?
I want to name, first of all, an interesting finding from the analysis that gives some important context, which is that domestic violence service provision organizations were pretty regularly quoted in the coverage. That includes folks who are representing organizations that support survivors either in prevention or intervention. So, that definitely suggests that journalists are doing their best and trying to tell complete stories. That’s a great strength.
To build on that strength, some of the things that organizations can do when they’re working with journalists include, first of all, making sure that they know and are cognizant of who’s writing about domestic violence in their communities so that they can continue to foster relationships. They can also give constructive feedback, including praise, and pitch stories to help ensure that journalists have the capacity to tell stories that go beyond the isolated details of a particular incident and focus on the systems and structures that need to change to make California safer for all communities.
Service provision organizations also have such a unique opportunity to bring forward perspectives that may not currently be part of the conversation about domestic violence, its disparate impact on certain communities, and what we have to do to address those inequities. There was not a lot of coverage, for example, of the fears that many Black and Brown communities may have about reporting domestic violence due to well-documented patterns in inequitable treatment by the child welfare system. And there’s very little coverage on why disparities like that may exist. But organizations that serve those communities could help connect journalists to people who can talk about inequities — and how to address them — in ways that are respectful, accurate, and trauma-informed.
Conclusion
When it comes to domestic violence, the better we understand the scope and nature of the problem, the better chance we have of solving it. Including more survivor voices — not just talking about the harm that they’ve experienced but also about their proposed solutions — can build on the important work journalists are already doing and help ensure that the public conversation that shapes how we understand domestic violence is accurate and complete.
For additional insights to help strengthen reporting on domestic violence, read the full report: “The News About Domestic Violence: Findings from an Analysis of California News, 2023-2025.”