 |
| Sober Epitaph |
I am typically less happy with the media when the reporting intersects with my areas of expertise, e.g., mental health, suicide, childhood and adolescence.
Let's take recent examples:
A nurse kills herself following a media hoax related to the UK royal family. The irony is that the hoax, which, by wide and repetitive media insinuation is presented as having been causal in this suicide (e.g., media emphasis on the guilt/horror of hoaxers, the death threats they face etc...) is perhaps equally or less heinous journalistic behavior than the widespread reporting of this suicide as if largely caused by the hoax.
Any suicide is a media opportunity to remind the public of risk factors for suicide, including mental illnesses, which often go un- or under-treated, sometimes for reasons that are media-worthy as well: stigma, limited access, poor recognition by family members or sufferers, intrinsic factors related to mental illness etc.... Sensationalizing a suicide is irresponsible.
This is not an opinion: there is a body of evidence strongly showing that. Even if not complete and not perfect, enough data support implementation of more ethical reporting guidelines for suicides. See the data for yourselves in this World Health Organization report on Responsible and Deglamourized Media Reporting: http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/suicide/q9/en/index.html
The horrible tragedy in Newton, which has facebook and twitter aflutter, is another example: is it responsible or ethical to interview little kids who have survived this trauma? Ok, it is reporting that they heard "boom, bang, crash" and were scared, but is it good reporting? It is dangerous to sensationalize this tragedy and it is irresponsible to not take the opportunity to outline the risk factors that may be associated with such "senseless" acts: mental illness, alienation, poor emotional insight and yes, dear media friends, desire for fame/infamy.
A wonderful journalist told me recently that the public eats up stories about children. I get that.
Let's curb our appetites: in this particular case too, they are dangerous when out of control.
Till Later,
Anne
Thanks for this commentary. The media frenzy around this has been so awful to witness. Even NPR was busy assuring me that they were finding out every detail and relaying it to me as fast as they possibly could - because - um - why, again? Why do I urgently need to know the exact details of a horrible tragedy 20 minutes sooner? I don't. This frenzied rush does nothing for individual members of the public other than satisfy a voyeuristic need to immerse ourselves in others' tragedies. What it does do is sensationalize these kinds of acts. Why would someone kill children like this? Everyone's asking the question, over and over, understandably. But I haven't heard any journalist posit the answer "because it makes us cover their rage and the horrible consequences of that rage in wall-to-wall international live TV coverage. Although the "Experts warn there may be copycat killings" headlines are now starting to pop up, finally, since, well, that nets a separate click-able headline.
ReplyDeleteI understand that it's human nature to gravitate towards wanting to immerse ourselves in compelling stories of others' lives. But that doesn't mean we need to unthinkingly gratify that instinct in every way, no matter what the cost.
That's right, NPR was hysterical as well. I had to turn off a reporter "live" from Newton, rambling about bits and pieces tremulously articulated with qualifiers a la: "I am saying this but it has not been confirmed and we should be careful since so much has been stated and then was not confirmed but I will tell you this other thing now which has not been confirmed".
Delete