AN astonishing claim regarding suicides was made recently in the local media, and this was unfortunately followed by an incident that could be considered by some as an outright refutation of that assertion.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to get on a high horse regarding this subject. This is something beyond who is right and wrong. We’re not dealing with pretty abstractions and clever theories here. This issue is about real people and real families, some of whom I personally know. And as a father, I certainly do not relish discussing what we parents consider as THE unthinkable.
Certain things about this issue, however, should be pointed out, and I hope that my colleagues in the media would consider this as a contribution to constructive discussions, and not a criticism or even an admonishment. I know that everyone in the local media is trying his best, and no one wants to cause harm. All of us, moreover, want to be better informed about issues like this, and I hope that this could bring us closer toward that goal.
This column is a reaction to the declaration that “not covering suicide incidents is wrong ‘if you are a newspaper.’” This was probably provoked by a previous Variations on why this paper, as a rule, would rather not report suicides. (What this paper prefers to do, incidentally, is to print articles and press releases on the PREVENTION of suicides and workshops of organizations that seek to help parents and youths deal with this issue.) My column was apparently considered a “rebuke” of previous news reports, which therefore required a “rebuttal.”
The fact remains, however, that there has been research into preventable risk factors such as “media contagion.” This is a process “by which exposure to the suicide or suicidal behavior of one or more persons influences others to commit or attempt suicide.” I lifted that from an online forum, publicdebate.com, which also noted that “media coverage of suicide has been associated with a statistical increase in later deaths, and the effect of this influence appears to be strongest among adolescents.” Organizations like The Samaritans and the Irish Association of Suicidology likewise noted that “there is evidence to suggest that inappropriate reporting or depiction can lead to so-called ‘copycat suicide,’ also known as suicide contagion.”
In the spring of 1997, moreover, Reuters reported that “the media may play an unwitting role in increasing the likelihood that a vulnerable individual may attempt or commit suicide.” This report quoted the remarks made by Dr. Madelyn S. Gould, professor of psychiatry and public health at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, during a suicide prevention symposium. “New studies show that the incidence of ‘copycat’ and clusters of suicides—which occur most often with adolescents—increases after extensive newspaper or television coverage,” Gould said. “‘Suicide contagion’ is real, and there are numerous recent studies that show a correlation with the quantity of certain types of news coverage and incidence of suicides or attempts,” Gould added. Recent studies conducted in the U.S. and overseas have shown that decreases in suicide rates occur following the implementation of media guidelines, she said. For example, after Austria adopted guidelines for the press, the number of suicides fell, Gould said.
According to the guidelines prepared by The Samaritans, “reporting suicide is important and can be beneficial,” BUT “suicide by imitation has [also] long been recognized….and certain types of media reporting can be catalyst for suicide. There is evidence that excessive publicity of actual suicide does increase copycat suicides. For example, in the 1970s, during the 12 months following international publicity of a suicide from burning, there were 60 more suicides from burning in Britain than would normally be expected. In Australia, research has suggested that more Australian men took their lives immediately after news stories about suicides in the country’s two metropolitan newspapers….”
Some critics have pointed out that “many such research studies have methodological problems” and, in any case, “suicide is a complex issue…and there are always many factors in a person’s life, which lead to suicide.” But these same critics also acknowledged that “certain types of reporting of suicide in the media may be a precipitating factor in some suicides.”
I certainly don’t think that anyone in the local media would like to be a “precipitating factor.”
Now if a newspaper has to report a suicide incident—e.g., the victim is a public figure—then it has do be done “with great care.” The Samaritans advised the media not to sensationalize the issue. “The focus should be on educating and informing the public rather than trying to shock, present graphic details or worse, titillating. Perhaps the most important guiding principle is to consider the reader, listener or viewer, who might be in crisis when they read, hear or see the report. Will this piece make it more likely that they will attempt suicide or more likely that they will seek help? Is the report likely to cause extra, unnecessary pain for relatives and friends of the deceased person?”
The British Broadcasting Corp.’s Producer Guidelines state, “Reported suicides may encourage others. We should not try to add to this risk.” They should be reported, if at all, “in moderate terms.” More guidelines on this issue are provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Association of Suicidology and they are available online.
I don’t think it will hurt us to know them.
