Abstract
Media coverage of suicide varies by
nation, but the concerns remain the same for the vast majority of people. What
is the best way to maintain the privacy of individuals while still reporting
honestly and in the best interests of the public? This work will examine the
positive and negative elements of media reporting on suicide, as well as how to
potentially change the future in a way that benefits potential victims of
suicide.
Key
Words: media, ethics, suicide, sociology
The tragedy of suicide, though deeply
personal in nature, is of national concern. Not because it is private, but
because its presence in society can impact anyone. Men and women of every shade
of fortune take their lives every year, leading medical and media personnel to
do everything within their power to effect change.
This
work will focus on media and its impact on public perception of suicide. Should
the media leave suicide cases in the shadow of rumor? What are the downsides of
reporting on instances of suicide, and what are media duties in such reporting?
After discussing the pros and cons of coverage of suicide, this work will
examine possible ways to influence future society positively.
While
some media outlets may cover suicide for no other reason than financial gain,
there are also ethical reasons to report suicide. Perhaps the most obvious of
those reasons relates to those who have put themselves in the public spotlight.
Unlike the suicide of a small town librarian, that of a celebrity is of public
interest. The details of that celebrity’s life have, on some scale, been
reported to the public. Should he or she die, it is in the nature of a news
outlet to report that which is in the public’s desire to hear.
Take
the case of Robin Williams, who took his life in 2014. The news of his death
became the talk of the nation. Condolences went out on social media, on
television, and in prayer. Williams’ celebrity status was of national interest,
making silence on the matter of no gain. In fact, the news became an opportunity
to honor his life’s work. Some news outlets even spread awareness of the rare
brain disease that led him to take his life (McKeith 2015).
The
next case, though of greater complexity than can be discussed here, is a
necessary part of the issue of media coverage of suicide. Assisted suicide and
the “right to die” are essential national discussions for every democratic
society. If media put down a rule to never cover suicide, it would be
irresponsible to ignore such an important ethical issue.
In
the seminal case of Sue Rodriguez, for example, she fought for the right to die
to avoid dying slowly to her progressive Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS).
Though the Canadian courts ruled against her, her fight and the coverage of
that fight were an important part of the public dialog on the ethicality of
assisted suicide (Cohen-Almagor, 2005, p. 116).
The
third major ethical reason to report suicide is in the case of trends or
phenomena. If an unusual number of young people from the same school commit
suicide, it deserves media comment. Perhaps there is something wrong with the
school—the public has a right to know.
Another
is among specific demographics of people. For example, gay men (in Scotland in
this study) attempt to take their lives at a far higher rate than heterosexual
men: 3% vs. 0.4% (STV News, 2011). It would be churlish at best to avoid
covering this issue to “preserve privacy.” Private citizens should be given an
accurate picture of the world they live in, so that they have the opportunity
to change it.
If
the media did not report suicide phenomena accurately, news sources could pick
which at-risk groups receive coverage. This could put less popular groups in an
increasingly disadvantaged position. Suicide among other groups may be
addressed while the minority group’s suicide goes unnoticed.
Ethical
issues relating to suicide are rarely simple, however. There are significant
reasons to limit the media reporting of suicide. When someone takes his life,
is it fair to the family to drag that person’s tragedy into the public light?
Is it fair to the victim?
While
the right to privacy is an important element of a democratic society, it is not
limitless. Committing crimes, for example, can lead to the waving of the right
to privacy. If authority has sufficient reason to intrude in the form of a
warrant, they can reasonably invade the privacy of a citizen. But when it comes
to suicide, there must be a significant reason to give public attention to a
suicide case in detail.
Another
fear of covering suicide is not the violation of rights, but the propagation of
the tragedy of which the media intends only to inform. The emulation of
another’s suicide is known as copycat suicide or the Werther effect, after
Goethe’s Sorrows of Young Werther. Categorizing the cause of a suicide may not
be possible, however. Say someone does copy a widely reported suicide. Was this
person planning on killing himself or herself before? Media coverage of suicide
may only influence the method, rather than the reason for suicide.
Still,
the Werther effect has some plausibility, a recent study reported. The number
of suicide attempts, if not suicides themselves, dropped off significantly when
Austria imposed ethical guidelines for the media reporting of suicide
(Niederkrotenthaler, et al., 2007).
According
to other research, traditional sources are still most common source of
knowledge of suicides, though online forums are increasingly relevant (Dunlop,
et al. 2011). If the coverage of specific suicides impacts future suicides,
then it is well within the mainstream media’s ability to affect the lives of
their readers.
Forming
an ethical perspective may have no effect, however, without discussion of
solutions to outstanding problems. Current media ethical standards in the
United States are weak at best. Craig Branson, former director of the American
Society of News Editors, said
Industry
codes are very generic and totally voluntary. Most ethical decisions are left
to individual editors at individual papers. The industry would fight any
attempt to create more specific rules or standards, and editors would no doubt
ignore them. (Norris, B. and M. Jempson, 2001).
A potential solution to this issue is
the implementation of a press council, as has been done with varying degrees of
success in Israel, Canada, and the United Kingdom (Cohen-Almagor, 2005, p.
124). The goal these organizations is a self-regulating media. In a democratic
republic such as the United States, government restrictions on media would be met
with intense opposition, from the industry and from citizens alike. Freedom of
the press is a part of the nation’s constitution. That freedom, however, can
lead media coverage to be far from satisfactory.
A
press council would set ethical standards for media coverage in relevant areas,
including suicide. There would be general and specific rules for when—and when
not—to cover such a delicate matter as someone taking his or her life.
The
downside of a press council is enshrined in the sentiment of Mr. Branson above.
Even full-fledged councils can succumb to the stagnation experienced by the
American Society of News and Editors. An attractive website and a board of
industry specialists cannot mask whether an association is capable of carrying
out its mission. Raphael Cohen-Almagor described his own experience with the
Israeli press council. A barebones budget, public dissatisfaction with its
work, and unenforceable standards have left the organization without bark or
bite (Cohen-Almagor, 2005, p. 144). Any attempt to establish such an
organization must temper its expectations accordingly.
The
uncertainty of the press council solution leaves room for another discussion:
gradual societal change. While probably the least exciting solution possible,
harnessing the power of society’s ebb and flow through private citizens,
lobbying, and media may be the best democratic solution to the problem of media
coverage of suicide.
Media
uses their powers to inform about the prevalence of suicide among certain
groups. It is also possible that they use that same influence to inform the
public about how to prevent suicide and influence society for the best. To make
this happen, private individuals much make suicide prevention a part of what
they care about. Which news outlets they give their business to, and what
charities they support, can contribute to such gradual societal change.
The
issue of suicide coverage in the media is hardly at the forefront of the public
consciousness, but its implication can affect the lives of troubled people
everywhere. Coverage of famous people, complex issues like assisted suicide,
and the existence of group trends are all legitimate forms of media reporting.
But where that line is crossed into unnecessary violation of privacy or
glorification of suicide is something that is not as simple as a single rule.
To
better serve the public, and indeed their own journalistic reputations,
reporters should find the place where they can honestly believe they are doing
good in their reporting on the tragedy of suicide. This cannot be implemented
by governmental standards without violating the foundations of democracy, but
through industry-enforced standards and private change, it may be possible.
The
deeper issue here is the question “Who holds the media responsible?” The
constitution makes it clear that it is not the government. No, it is the people
of the United States who hold media accountable. If media behavior is not
satisfactory, it is in every person’s interest to act.
News
outlets are not immune from gaining a reputation for poor reporting,
sensationalism, or extreme bias. This is accomplished not through careful
government deliberation, but through the ebb of a culture that can, if it
desires, hold media to the highest of ethical standards.
References
Cohen-Almagor,
R. (2005). Speech, media, and ethics: The
limits of free expression. New York, NY: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Dunlop
S. M., E. More, and D. Romer (2011). Where
do youth learn about suicides on the Internet, and what influence does this
have on suicidal ideation? US National Library of Medicine. Retrieved from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21658185
Gould,
M.S., S. Wallenstein, M. H. Kleinman, P. O’Carroll, and J. Mercy (1990). Suicide clusters: an examination of
age-specific effects. US National Library of Medicine. Retrieved from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404629/
McKeith,
I. (2015). What is Lewy Bodies Dementia,
the condition Robin Williams was diagnosed with after his death? The
Independent. Retrieved from: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/robin-williams-death-lewy-bodies-dementia-causes-symptoms-parkinsons-disease-brain-alzheimers-a6726801.html
Norris,
B. and M. Jempson (2001). Covering
suicide worldwide: media responsibilities. The PressWise Trust. Retrieved
from:
https://iasp.info/pdf/task_forces/UnitedKingdom_Covering_Suicide_Worldwide.pdf
Niederkrotenthaler
T1, Herberth A, Sonneck G. (2007). The
“Werther-effect”: legend or reality?. US National Library of Medicine.
Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18082110
STV
News (2011). Suicide rates among gay men
eight times higher. Scotland TV News. Retrieved from:
http://stv.tv/news/scotland/304764-suicide-rates-among-gay-men-eight-times-higher/
No comments:
Post a Comment