The uncompromising way: Several lessons from homeless journalists

Inclusive practices in journalism

The power of journalists to shape disempowering narratives and misconceptions around homelessness directly impacts the lives of those surviving on the streets (Bowen and Capozziello, 2022; Conrad-Perez et al., 2021; Cowal et al., 2023; Ravenhill, 2016; Schneider, 2012; Zufferey, 2014). While journalists may care about homelessness and aspire to write articles that raise awareness and foster empathy for the unhoused, their professional practices and the need to maintain journalism as a distinct professional field often lead them to work in ways that may obstruct the fulfillment of their personal goals related to addressing homelessness (Schneider, 2013). For example, fostering empathy may support individualistic solutions to homelessness while leaving the systemic causes behind, consequently inhibiting social justice (Varma, 2019). Instead, Varma (2019; 2020, 2023) argues that journalists should embrace solidarity as a news value when addressing issues like homelessness as it fosters social change (Varma, 2019).

It is noteworthy that citizen journalists may bring story ideas that are “in many ways richer, reflecting their insider perspective, than an outside professional reporter might provide” (Gerson et al., 2017: 336). They may also excel at personal stories and pieces involving more subjective witnessing (Bock, 2012), which, if mediated by professionals, may merely evoke empathy (Varma, 2019, 2020), whereas it has the potential to promote intragroup solidarity as it embodies the “we take care of us” narrative (Varma, 2023: 1884). This raises the question of why professional news organizations have not adopted more inclusive and participatory practices.

Some of the answers are pointed out by Wenzel in her research on engaged journalism (2019: 710): it has been mainly “due to a combination of resources challenges and professional norms.” In terms of resources, the key obstacles to achieving sustainability boil down to time and financial constraints. Challenges in attracting and retaining talent (Wenzel, 2019) and the ongoing struggle to sustain the interest, energy, and time of participants over extended periods (Gerson et al., 2017) also play a significant role. Providing thorough training, while beneficial for improving outcomes, demands substantial investment in personnel. This process is further complicated by the fact that emerging citizen journalists may struggle with credibility due to their non-professional status, as noted by Gerson et al. (2017), a sentiment compounded by their relative lack of experience and low self-confidence ¹ . Additionally, professional journalists may perceive their contributions as not meeting quality or newsworthiness standards, especially when they evaluate them against the norm of objectivity (Wenzel and Crittenden, 2021). Nevertheless, objectivity, framed as an ideal that “removes the subjectivity of the journalist from her selection and depiction of events” (Carlson, 2018: 1760), may lead to a distancing from communities and the perpetuation of hegemonic practices (Robinson and Culver, 2019) and potentially deepen the subordination of the underprivileged, including the unhoused.

Rigid adherence to the objectivity norms may result in failing “to meet journalism’s emancipatory goals” (Durham, 1998: 118) and thus contribute to sustaining the oppression of the marginalized. Similarly, it may be a way to preserve the status quo while recognizing that participation is, above all, a means for power redistribution (Arnstein, 1969), which “scares the hell out of people in power” (Holliday, 2019). Arguably, the notion of objectivity in the sense of impartiality (Durham, 1998) may be more conveniently replaced by either “strong” or “pragmatic” objectivity. Pragmatic objectivity puts to rest the misunderstanding that objectivity is perfect knowledge of reality. Also, it does not require neutrality and avoids a hard distinction between objective fact and subjective opinion centered around the perspective of a community. It doesn’t guarantee truth but instead wears a human face throughout standard-guided interpretations (Ward, 2010). Similarly, strong objectivity recognizes that diverse social positions offer unique insights into the world, suggesting that certain perspectives or standpoints can yield a more accurate and comprehensive understanding. This becomes particularly significant when incorporating the viewpoints of marginalized or oppressed groups (Durham, 1998).

Participatory and community-centered journalism (Wenzel, 2020) also holds the potential to bring some fresh air to journalism (Robinson, 2018; Robinson et al., 2021), which is in a state of decline, both financially and morally (Robinson, 2018: 3). It can be revitalized by rebuilding trust through engaging and inclusive journalism that is produced for and with communities (Robinson, 2018; Wenzel, 2020). This involves embracing new roles for journalists as community collaborators who cultivate professional networks, foster relationships, and facilitate community dialogues (Robinson, 2018), ultimately promoting ongoing dialogue crucial not only for the future of journalism and democracy but also for the community well-being (Radcliffe et al., 2023).

Media participation as social dialogue

One way for the media to contribute to social change is to encourage social dialogue through participation practices. In this section, I shed more light on media participation, particularly its maximalist forms, as defined by Carpentier (2011) as a way to view participatory media and journalism directed toward social change. Furthermore, I will discuss the prevailing notion of always striving for the highest levels of participation based on the proportionality between participation, power, and empowerment (Arnstein, 1969; Baiocchi and Ganuza, 2020; Cooke and Kothari, 2001). I argue that full media participation with unhoused populations may not always bring the most power as the highest participation forms might not even be desired by the participants; instead, they may—at least at first—prefer to be a part of broader community engagement (Dvořák, 2022, 2024).

When referring to the highest forms of participation, I use Carpentier’s (2011) notion of maximalist forms of participation. These could be viewed through Pateman’s definition of full participation, which is a process where all wield equal power and status in decision-making related to planning and management (1970). Or, through Arnstein’s citizen power, the last three rungs on the ladder of participation she developed in 1969. Citizen power encompasses three topmost levels: partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. Partnership stands for a situation where all stakeholders have an equal say in decision-making processes. At the level of delegated power, the participants gain the majority. Ultimately, citizen control means that they are completely in charge of all decision-making ² .

Furthermore, Carpentier (2011) sees participation’s potential in media as twofold: in media structure and media content. Maximalist media participation may occur in these two separately but ideally in both simultaneously. However, the ideal requires special attention for achieving maximalist forms of media participation, particularly in structural decision-making, with unhoused people may be challenging (Dvořák, 2022). Numerous factors contribute to the difficulties with long-term planning, decision-making, and management. These encompass not only the near-constant insecurity and instability in their daily lives but also their heightened social exclusion, experienced invisibility, or voicelessness (Clapham, 2007; Cronley, 2022; Edgar, 2009; Ravenhill, 2016; Shinn, 2010; Watson et al., 2016; Yost, 2012), along with challenges such as low self-esteem, health issues, reliance on technology, or fear of reprisal when adopting a public voice (Luce et al., 2017).

Practically, achieving the ultimate degree of media participation—citizen control (Arnstein, 1969)—with people experiencing homelessness may more likely remain a utopian vision, but it’s crucial to retain it as the ultimate goal. Firstly, the process may yield unforeseen successes and benefits for all parties involved. Secondly, without such ambition, the very essence of participation would be jeopardized, if not compromised.

Arnstein’s (1969) tri-partite concept is vital for the argument that the highest levels of participation may not necessarily be always the most empowering. It is generally assumed that higher levels of participation yield more empowerment (Arnstein, 1969; Carpentier, 2011, 2016; Hardina, 2021). In this case, all efforts in the promotion of participation should always aim at citizen control. Although this may be correct ultimately in ideal scenarios, it would be an oversimplification potentially resulting in the degradation of delegated power and partnership that may be—at certain stages—more natural and as rewarding in terms of empowerment. Participation and empowerment require time to evolve naturally. It does not begin at its ultimate stage of development. Similarly, empowerment needs time to grow, to gradually build self-confidence and the ability to exert more power. Forcing a rush to the topmost participation levels, as we have witnessed too often (Bouchard, 2016; Cooke and Kothari, 2001), may as well corrupt the essence of participation, leading to its darker side (Carpentier et al., 2019).

Instead, it may be at first more appropriate to seek partnership—a stage where stakeholders may feel more secure thanks to the process of sharing not only power but also responsibility, accountability, or awareness. It may also be one of the best spaces for mutual learning and creating social dialogue, which emerges as a liberating and transformative process rooted in the reciprocal exchange of ideas and experiences. Through it, individuals critically engage with reality and (re)define it. The potential belief of the oppressed in the necessity to fight for their liberation is not a gift from revolutionary leadership but emerges from their own process of conscientização (Freire, 2005).

This highlights the importance of letting participation and empowerment unfold gradually and naturally. Freire emphasizes that dialogue must be sustained with the oppressed, no matter the stage of their struggle for liberation (2005: 65). However, we must also realize that the participatory minimum lies in partnership (Arnstein, 1969). Anything below this partnership hinders genuine and liberating dialogue. Thus, media participation is not just a space for social dialogue—it is social dialogue itself. And like any conversation, it must begin somewhere. For us, that starting point should be a partnership, which ideally leads to delegated power or ultimate citizen control.

Thus, as previously stated, partnership (Arnstein, 1969) may prove more fitting in the following cases: a) when the minority prefers not to take the lead (or at least not at first); b) when the stigma, social exclusion, and the lack of power have deeply entrenched, demanding more time to be overcome; and c) when there's an urgent necessity for enhancing critical consciousness (Freire, 2005) to avert the risk of community disempowerment.

To bring about media partnership with the unhoused, the privileged actors must willingly step back: relinquish their power, and state that it now rests in the participants’ hands. Although this step may seem counterintuitive, we must realize that giving up power does not render us powerless in the process. On the contrary, it is crucial to view power from Foucault’s perspective (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 2014; Foucault, 1991; Gallagher, 2008) as a relation that is always subject to change and a source of change—it is productive, it creates reality, or allow hidden truths to emerge only when power is shared.

Overcoming the inevitable inequality and the inside perspective of truth

After 3 years of fieldwork, I ended up asking the same question: is true equality between professional journalists and marginalized populations attainable? No matter how noble the intentions—whether advocacy, giving voice, or ethical sensitivity—the other stakeholders remain instruments to an end, rendering the process inherently morally biased (Mingers and Walsham, 2010; Reed, 1999). Essentially, journalists exhaust the voice of the voiceless, albeit for the greater good of the individual or community. This is inevitable and cannot be changed without a complete transformation and revitalization (Robinson, 2018; Robinson et al., 2021) of journalism’s professionalism and the notion of objectivity.

However, despite this seeming cul-de-sac, there may be a solution. I have often witnessed unhoused folks interview each other. In all such instances, one remarkable similarity emerged in terms of power dynamics. The interviewer and interviewee seemed to inhabit equal roles in their communication:

At first, they seemed not to know what to expect. Neither of them. They didn’t know one another before, but they knew they were both homeless. Then they sat next to each other, entirely equal, and talked. A quick exchange: how they were, where they slept the night before, how they felt, what plan they had, accompanied by mutual nodding, and those ‘l know what you mean brother; been there; am there’ they quickly moved on to who they were apart from not having a roof above one’s head: who as persons they were, what they have been through, how they’re gonna make it up – and all happened so fast and naturally, it was not a one-way interrogation but a dialogue that benefited both of them.

Both parties also claimed that such communication felt natural, and despite delving into personal experiences, they claimed that such interaction was mostly pleasant. This approach also carried intrinsic value through its dialogical nature, promoting mutual understanding and the ability to articulate each other’s worlds.

Also, regardless of years of experience or expertise, we cannot fully understand the experience of people who live in extreme poverty and social exclusion ³ . Some of the participants expressed their frustration with journalists who write about homelessness without truly understanding the experience, to paraphrase Claire: “They [journalists] can’t understand, they’re no homeless, they should try it, for a week at least, so they know what it’s like to be hungry, have nowhere to sleep, to be frowned upon.” Understanding this is one of the first necessary steps journalists must take to enhance inclusivity in their practices ⁴ .

I observed that participants were naturally adept at gaining closer-to-complete information and stories from others. The most intriguing observation was their openness and honesty when interviewed by another homeless person. As for example, in one of the interviews written by John:

John: “Would you like to have a family?”

Interviewee: “Not anymore, but it was different in the past. Now I feel that no one would stay long with me.”

When asked about this, they revealed that they didn’t feel as ashamed as they did when interacting with outsiders. They mentioned that they felt no need to lie or conceal aspects of their lives they may not have been proud of, thanks to the shared experience with the interviewer.

Overall, these insights highlight that unequal power relations not only disadvantage the have-nots but also hinder the truth-seeking process for the professionals. The power dynamic may induce shame in the powerless, pushing them to hide parts of their truth. Thus, the implication becomes apparent— if professional journalists aspire to uncover truths about invisible worlds, they might need to step back from their position of power without impeding strong objectivity (Durham, 1998) to guide the way.

The dialogue in partnership – naming the world together

However, one objection remains, and it cannot be easily dismissed. What about the biases that might arise from their own stigma or injustices experienced at the hands of other unhoused individuals? Most participants were able to quickly develop critical awareness and understand that using their voices to disempower others would ultimately limit their own freedom. Some were completely unaware of their biases, necessitating considerable effort to navigate through them together and comprehend how media shaped their everyday lives and the lives of their unhoused peers.

Although the ultimate goal was to bring them to citizen control (Arnstein, 1969), we learned that there might be more power to discover and share in delegated power and partnership. Firstly, sharing knowledge about media effects and their consequences helped them better understand and define their world. Secondly, they excelled at shedding light on our modern world, emphasizing the implications of homelessness for Western societies. Exposing us to first-hand suffering and the complexities of homeless life, which is not solely the result of individual failure but also our collective unwillingness to see it. Such exposure forces us to confront ourselves, sparks deeper interest and engagement, and potentially contributes to building more responsibility. Thus, the process became mutually empowering as we jointly contributed to a deeper understanding of our shared world:

Throughout the months, I kept realizing that it is the subjective that places the final piece into the mosaic of truth. Without it, it was incomplete. I thought I understood what homelessness is, heard thousands of their stories, and yet, so little did I know, so much was still eluding, things I can never understand unless I become homeless. […] Similarly, they missed a lot by being imprisoned in their subjectivity, focused on the pain and misery, and it was through revealing the consequences of their voice during our sessions that they came to understand their roles in the lives of others.

Furthermore, it becomes increasingly evident that achieving the levels of citizen control and delegated power in media participation, although promising more power (Arnstein, 1969; Carpentier, 2011, 2016; Hardina, 2021), may not be an absolute necessity. Arguably, partnership between media professionals and the unhoused holds the potential for more extensive dialogue and, consequently, shared power, which is not exclusive but mutually communicated and shared.

Writing and sharing heals

Creative and expressive writing has been extensively studied and found to offer multiple health benefits to individuals (Costa and Abreau, 2018; Cooper, 2014). The writing experience of the participants supported this notion while transcending it slightly. Many of those who attempted to put their personal stories on paper revealed that writing the first word was one of the most challenging tasks they had undertaken in recent times. However, upon completing their writing, they expressed a sense of relief and something they had sorely lacked in their lives since becoming homeless—a feeling of accomplishment.

Before starting our session, I met James outside. As usual, he reminded me that I should quit smoking and laughed. But then he became somewhat serious. He said that his bag had been stolen and his writings were in it. He’d written down his own story. He said that it wasn’t easy, that it hurt, to go back, recall, to open the wounds. But then, he said, as soon as he started, he felt relief, and now with the distance, he could start to heal […] later that day, he mentioned that retelling the story to others [participants] made that feeling even stronger.

The process of sharing their writing with others in the groups proved to be one of the key factors. It provided a community platform where their voices were heard and acknowledged, fostering their courage and empowerment through shared experiences. For instance, Peter opened one of his stories as follows:

“Why am I actually writing all this… This is my little reflection on healing. Drinking – it sounds so beautifully trivial and fun, but in reality it is not so funny; and I would like to share with you, what it was like for me.”

During these sharing sessions, their voices were both affirmed and challenged by others, either reinforcing their depiction of their experiences or giving them new names that brought greater validity. Importantly, their interactions were always very supportive. Such sessions brought about critical debates that were conducted with respect to diversity. The power to build interpersonal and community relationships at the partnership level was apparent through more dialogues emerging in the community.

The power dynamics between me and the participants also shifted, now fostering a more equitable space for exchange. It was evident that they were not merely passive recipients of questions but active contributors to the dialogue, enriching the narrative with their lived experiences. This mutual engagement facilitated the development of a more nuanced understanding of homelessness.

The partnership-based approach to media participation, with its emphasis on shared power and dialogue, proved to be a transformative experience for both the unhoused people and me. It not only allowed for the empowerment of marginalized voices but also brought about a more profound mutual understanding of the complexities of homelessness, thereby challenging our perceptions and fostering a sense of shared responsibility.

Amplifying the voices

There are two other concerns that logically arise with the ambitions to co-create media participation with unhoused populations. Firstly, do they truly wish to take part in media participation efforts? And second, how deep-rooted is their voicelessness?

The research indicates at least some interest among people experiencing homelessness to engage in such endeavors (Dvořák, 2022; Luce et al., 2017; Schneider, 2014). However, more research on this topic is needed should participatory practices be ever more incorporated into those of professional media organizations. We experienced some of the many factors that may hinder participation (Bock, 2012; Luce et al., 2017; Wenzel, 2019). For example, Dan even wrote a short piece about the difficulties with writing on the street: “Writing articles is very difficult. I have my own experience with it […] It is even more difficult for the homeless, almost impossible […] above all, we do not have the space or the means for this noble intellectual activity.” With a bit of irony, he further explained that ideally, “at home, the writer sits down at the typewriter [and] pours a glass of wine” while enjoying the heat from the fireplace.

However, regardless of these obstacles or the extent of one’s interest, other systemic factors will always play a role in affecting sustainability. The unstable and unpredictable nature of their lives often hinders progress toward achieving the highest levels of participation (Dvořák, 2022). While some express enthusiasm and motivation to sustain the project, others might leave due to changing life circumstances or unforeseen opportunities for a better life. Sometimes, it may be vital not to rely solely on the initiatives of the unhoused. Some participants expressed a strong desire to become their community journalists or even viewed it as a long-lost dream. For instance, when we first met, Jane enthusiastically asserted that she had always wanted to become a journalist. However, the transient nature of their everyday life often led to sudden changes in the project's composition. Just a couple of months later, she secured an apartment and a job. Despite her desire to attend our sessions, she found it challenging to accommodate them within her new schedule.

Also, fear stemming from past negative experiences may prevent them from speaking out. Their voices have been manipulated, misused, or dismissed before, leading to a sense of hesitancy and mistrust. However, given time and the creation of a safe and supportive environment, they could begin to liberate their voices. Remarkably, even those who were initially reserved could transform into eloquent advocates within a short period when provided with the opportunity to be heard and valued.

And like with Claire, or James, Mike, who didn’t much engage in the conversations at first, mostly listened only, came this morning somehow changed. He brought up his own ideas for the topics to cover and sought to interview others, being quite convincing to others why what they had to say matters. He told me that, as other folks listened to him, he realized that even though there might be things that he can’t change, there are others that are worth speaking up for.

The significance of raising their voices cannot be overstated. It is not merely about providing a platform to share their experiences but also about empowering them to embrace their identities, dignity, and agency. Their stories hold power, shedding light on the realities of homelessness and humanizing their struggles. Amplification of their voices can contribute to dismantling the barriers of invisibility and dehumanization that they face daily and, ultimately, pave the way for societal understanding, empathy, and ultimately positive change.

The extraordinary ordinary

Another lesson emerged as I delved deeper into the topics and news stories that the participants deemed important. The findings mostly aligned with my previous research (Dvořák, 2022), emphasizing the importance of highlighting the uniqueness, humanity, and struggles of those experiencing homelessness. However, an intriguing dimension surfaced, revealing their response to generally unfavorable depictions of homeless people in mainstream media (Bowen and Capozziello, 2022; Conrad-Perez et al., 2021; Cowal et al., 2023; Ravenhill, 2016; Schneider, 2012; Zufferey, 2014).

In contrast to the mainstream media’s pursuit of attracting vast audiences through sensationalism, the participants opted to emphasize the ordinary aspects of their lives and personalities. They sought to remind us that they are not defined solely by homelessness; they are, first and foremost, human beings like anyone else. They have dreams, hobbies, relationship struggles, and moments of triumph. For them, being seen only through the lens of homelessness felt limiting and disempowering.

They passionately shared reviews of their favorite movies and books, discussing how they resonated with life on the streets. They opened up about their favorite foods and even revealed dietary restrictions, highlighting some of the less expected struggles, for example, in a poem written by Sean:

“The free food line doesn’t have vegetarian

Yet, we became aware of potential risks associated with emphasizing the ordinary aspects of their lives. An excessive focus on this dimension might inadvertently create the impression that life on the streets is not as harsh as it truly is, undermining the urgent need for societal attention and support. Furthermore, it might perpetuate the stereotype that homelessness is a matter of personal choice, eroding empathy and understanding.

One solution we explored involved juxtaposing the ordinary with the absurdity of life on the streets. For instance, one James was an avid chess player who spent hours participating in an official online league with remarkable success. Yet, he kept his homeless status hidden from other players, secretly wishing to sit down and play a face-to-face game with a real person. This approach allowed them to bring attention to their everyday joys while not diminishing the harsh realities of their circumstances.

By exposing these ordinary yet deeply human aspects of their lives, they challenged preconceived notions and stereotypes, endeavoring to reclaim their identities from the narrow confines of homelessness. This revelation underscored the importance of giving voice to their ordinary joys while also addressing the complexities and challenges they face daily.

Giving up power

The last yet perhaps the most important lesson was again a simple one. We must not insist on our power. Co-creating media participation for marginalized populations, we are likely to enter the process as powerholders. It is, however, vital to make clear that such power shall remain intrinsically productive for the sake of all stakeholders. And it may be necessary to let our power go. Eventually, I realized that aiming at the highest levels of civic engagement might not always be the most empowering approach. Insisting on complete participant autonomy can, in itself, become a form of coercive power that hinders empowerment. Instead, I found that the mutual sharing of skills, knowledge, and power over all decision-making resulted in a cumulative increase in our collective power, as I realized in one of the field notes: It is an exchange; I may tell them how to write things down and what to be careful about, and they show me parts of their lives I had no idea about or prove me wrong completely […] together, it looks like we are onto something that we couldn’t figure out separately.

The importance of staying at the level of the partnership became even more important when the changing nature of homelessness came into play. Instability and quick turns of events, constantly perpetuating any publication’s success and sustainability, made me understand the true meaning of such participatory action—the action bears more significance than the outcome—making me appreciate more the micro-level impact of the process on the participants. In other words, certain instances required me as a co-creator to completely give up on the tangible outcomes of the project and focus solely on the people ⁵ .

This lesson shows that giving up on power can open new paths for transformative change. Sometimes, taking a step back is the only way forward, as pushing ahead without considering others’ circumstances and needs would make the whole endeavor meaningless by leaving others behind. True empowerment lies in embracing humility and recognizing that lasting change emerges from the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders.