I WANT to thank Zaldy Dandan for his thoughtful “Variations” piece on “Media Contagion” which appeared last week. While my quoted comments were not intended to generate another article, I certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss this important public issue.
In fact, on behalf of the Suicide Prevention Task Force which operates under the umbrella of the Community Guidance Center, I would like to invite the publishers/owners, editors/news editors, and reportorial staff of all media in our commonwealth to attend a second workshop on this subject. (The first one was held Nov. 15, 2001.) We will try to work out a venue and time to make sure of the widest possible attendance.
As to my comments, I want to make clear the intent. They were not “provoked” by any previous “Variations” article, and it certainly was not a “rebuke,” which required a “rebuttal.”
My remarks discussed reporting of events, in this case, suicide. And I was specifically referring to the then-recent death of a young person off island. In this particular case, Tribune reported the incident on the front page in rather large type (banner headline). Conversely, Variety did not report the incident at all.
It is my personal, private opinion that both newspapers could have handled it differently.
1. Both papers “assumed that the death resulted from a suicide attempt” although there was no conclusive proof. As a result, one paper printed, and the other didn’t.
2. Tribune bannered the story, I presume, because of the family’s prominence in the commonwealth. One wonders if coverage would have been so extensive had that person not been from a prominent family.
3. Variety did not report the incident for its own reasons—presumably out of respect for the family. This is certainly the prerogative of the publisher of the newspaper which is, of course, not a public utility but a private, for-profit business.
4. And what is wrong with not covering the incident? Traditionally, newspapers write and record history for its readers “on the fly.” This, however, is not a legal requirement. Papers and other mediums cover events that affect our community. Therefore, as a matter of record, it is my view it could have been covered thusly: “Man from Saipan dies in fall from Honolulu building.” This is an accurate description of what happened. It is what we are “entitled” to know. The fifth “W,” the “why” of the event can be handled later, if appropriate.
I hope this is helpful.BRIAN FARLEY
Task Force Media Coordinator
Variety replies:
We’ve said it before, we’ll say it again. We would rather print press releases and other articles discussing the prevention of suicides. If Mr. Farley wants to check the accuracy of his “presumption” regarding our reasons for not running the story he mentioned in his letter, he should re-read last week’s Variations. It’s all there.—zd
