Also written: Victim/survivor, Victim
| Source | Year | Position |
|---|---|---|
| SumOfUs | 2016 | Use |
| Global Center for Journalism & Trauma | 2021 | Use with care |
| National Center on Disability and Journalism | 2021 | Use with care |
| Color of Change | 2022 | Use |
| Diversity Style Guide | 2023 | Use with care |
“People who have suffered sexual violence may not wish to be described as a victim, unless they choose the word themselves. Many prefer the word survivor.”
In its sexual and domestic violence guidance, SumOfUs notes that many people who have experienced sexual violence prefer “survivor” to “victim,” while deferring to the individual's own choice of word.
“She advises against using the word victim. But she also cautions against assuming the word survivor is the best alternative. Her approach is to listen to the language interviewees use to define themselves and follow suit.”
The trauma-journalism guide treats “survivor” with care: citing reporting practice, it advises against “victim” but warns against assuming “survivor” is automatically better, recommending instead that journalists follow the language each source uses to define themselves rather than imposing a victim/survivor binary.
“Terms such as “battle” and “survivor” are still widely accepted and understood, but the user should be aware that they could offend some people.”
In the health-condition context (“cancer survivor,” “stroke survivor”), NCDJ treats “survivor” as widely accepted but flags that some find it — and the related “battle” framing — objectionable, since it can imply that those who died simply did not fight hard enough. AP advises using “survivor” with care for imprecision.
“Beyond specific language and terminology to use when addressing sexual violence, putting practices in place that affirm survivors and center their narratives is extremely impactful.”
Color of Change's dedicated Black survivors guide centers a survivor-affirming, narrative-centering approach, using the paired form “victim/survivor” throughout and pairing terminology choices with coverage practices — content warnings, condemnation of sexual violence, and caution around words like “alleged” and “accuser” that can be weaponized against survivors.
“There is much debate about the terms victim and survivor, especially when used in the context of sexual assault and domestic violence. When possible, journalists should ask sources which terms they prefer.”
The Diversity Style Guide frames victim vs. survivor as a genuine debate: “victim” can imply passivity, while “survivor” can convey agency and resilience but is still one-dimensional. Drawing on femifesto's reporting guide, it recommends asking sources their preference and offers alternatives such as “a person who was subjected to sexual violence.”
“Survivor” carries two separate conversations in this corpus, and the guides handle both the same way: ask, don’t assume. In the sexual and domestic violence context, the contest is “victim” versus “survivor.” SumOfUs notes that many people who have experienced sexual violence prefer “survivor,” but defers to whether the person chooses the word themselves. The Diversity Style Guide frames it as a genuine debate — “victim” can imply passivity, “survivor” can convey agency but is still one-dimensional — and recommends asking sources their preference. The trauma-journalism guide (GCJT) goes furthest: it advises against “victim,” but it also cautions against assuming “survivor” is automatically the better word, recommending instead that journalists follow the language each person uses to define themselves. Color of Change’s dedicated Black survivors guide adopts the paired form “victim/survivor” throughout and ties the terminology to survivor-affirming coverage practices.
The second conversation is about health conditions — “cancer survivor,” “stroke survivor.” Here NCDJ records that “survivor” and the related “battle” framing are widely accepted and understood, but flags that they can offend, since the language of fighting and surviving can imply that those who died simply did not fight hard enough.
Both contexts share a rejection of the imposed binary. No source tells you to default to either “victim” or “survivor.” SumOfUs, DSG, and GCJT route the decision back to the person being described — follow the language each source uses for themselves. Color of Change comes at it from the coverage-practice side (affirming survivors, centering their narratives), and NCDJ from acceptance-with-caution in illness framing; neither contradicts the self-identification approach. Violence coverage and illness coverage raise different sensitivities, but the guides that prescribe a term-choice rule land in the same place, on self-identification.