Live chat with Jaelea Skehan - May 2010
|
|
Above: Jaelea Skehan, Program Director, Mindframe National Media Initiative
|
|
Below is a transcript of a live chat session held on the LIFE website in May 2010 with Jaelea Skehan, Program Director of the Mindframe National Media Initiative. The topic was 'media reporting and suicide prevention.'
Q: Australian of the Year, Professor Patrick McGorry, has recently called for greater reportage of suicide and more public discussion about suicidal ideation. Do you agree with McGorry? What is Mindframe's position on this?
A: I think it would be right to say that I both agree and disagree. While I think there does need to be greater community discussion and awareness of suicide and suicide prevention, we need to be very careful about using media as a way of doing that. It is important to remember that media is not a conversation; we give information en masse to people and have no way of monitoring how they interpret that information. There is overwhelming international evidence that suggests that reporting of deaths by suicide can lead to increases in suicidal behaviour - in deaths, attempts and thoughts about suicide. There is also a lack of evidence to suggest positive benefits of reporting suicide. So, while there may be opportunities to do suicide prevention via the media, I definitely do not think increased reporting of suicide deaths will benefit the community, given the weight of the evidence.
Q: Do you think that the current approach to reporting of suicide in the media means that the stigma continues and remains out of sight out of mind?
A: While media in Australia tend not to readily report on suicide deaths, recent Australian research shows that in the past 10 years (approximately) the amount of suicide reporting has actually increased, not decreased. As I said before, we do need to increase community awareness but we need to think carefully about what messages we would like to put through the media. While some media may handle the issue well, others do not have the time or space to cover a complex issue like suicide in ways that might benefit the community. We also need to remember that there is a difference between covering suicide deaths and covering the issue of suicide. It is stories about deaths, where people can identify with those in the report that are potentially harmful. That is why it is important for media and suicide prevention experts to work together, when stories do need to be told.
Q: The literature often refers to suicide as "completed" rather than "committed" suicide. Is there support for the idea that this is less stigmatizing and what kind of emphasis has been placed on terminology in reporting?
A We do tend to recommend that the term "committed" is not used for a couple of reasons - mostly because the term is often associated with crime or sin. So terms like "took their own life" or "dies by suicide" are preferred. We also recommend not to use value laden terms such as "successful suicide” or "unsuccessful suicide.” Additionally, we like media to consider not using sensationalist language like "suicide epidemic" which often alarms people and may make them feel more hopeless and helpless about the situation. With media such as online, we also ask them to consider whether they need to use the word "suicide" and to consider using terms such as "took their own life" just to reduce the amount of traffic from search engines from potentially vulnerable people.
Q: Is there any monitoring of the comments made on news sites around suicide? Some of these comments posted by the general public under stories about suicide could be potentially harmful to people at risk.
This is an issue we are currently trying to work through in partnership with online media editors. We do often see comments in the blogs after a story that have details or opinions that would not make the body of the story. While these may be good opportunities for issue-related community discussion, and we do want people to be able to post opinions, it is also true that the media sites should have an obligation to ensure any content on their site fits within their codes of practice and what we know about media and suicide. We have had a good response recently from some of the online editors we have met with to identify ways we might recommend that these blogs are moderated, in ways that would allow for community interaction but interaction that is safe for all people to consume.
Q: Jaelea, can you please comment on possible spikes in suicide incidents as a result of reporting sensationalist suicides such as celebrities.
A: Internationally there have been 97 studies looking at the association between media reporting and subsequent suicidal behaviour. Of these studies, 87% found an association between reporting and increased rates of suicide deaths, attempts or thoughts. We know that the potential for risk is increased where the story glorifies or sensationalises the death or where explicit details are given about method or location. Celebrity suicide is particularly tricky, because they are the very types of stories that will always be reported. I think we have seen a bit of a shift here in Australia and many of the celebrity deaths in recent years have been better handled than they may have been in the past - often exploring some of the underlying causes and promoting help-seeking behaviour. It is also important to remember that while people will identify with celebrities, as humans we will also identify with people who are just like us - so there needs to be caution in reporting all suicide deaths. As soon as we attach a person to a story, there is a chance that someone will identify with the story. The Mindframe guidelines aim to give journalists a framework for how to report stories.
Q: Is there a difference in community impact between different styles or forms of reporting e.g. Australian Story, which is comprehensive and systemic with recommendations for emergency contacts (such as call Lifeline) at the end, and a news report?
There is obviously more opportunity to get across suicide prevention messages in longer forms of media. In my opinion it is preferable to cover suicide as an issue where space allows us to show the complexity, and perhaps get across key messages to the community. So feature pieces in newspapers and magazines or current affairs pieces such as Australian Story will provide more opportunities for this than other forms of media. But we still need to be aware that messages we put across in editorial (e.g. news and current affairs) are not market tested and we cannot guarantee that people are receiving the messages we want them to get. So we do need to do our best to minimise harm (e.g. by reducing the focus on the individual death) and attempting to get across suicide prevention information (like warning signs) and help-seeking information.
Q: Have any studies looked at the use of sites like Facebook and Twitter with people expressing suicidal ideation and responses by others?
A: The problem here is that research is not keeping up with the technology, so the short answer is no. Mindframe does not currently have in its brief to look at social networking sites such as Facebook, but I know internationally people are investigating this issue. While there is concern about social networking sites, we do need to remember that young people still consume television more than any other media source, including the internet. That is why I think our stage and screen project, which works with Australian film and television, is so important. I also think the internet may provide us with opportunities to engage with young people as well as potential challenges - and I hope researchers get onto this quickly.
Q: In the recent critical review ‘Suicide and the News and Information Media’ (Pirkins and Blood, 2010) the authors conclude ‘it is reasonable to regard the association [between media stimuli and an increase in suicide rates] as causal.’ However they also write ‘only a limited number of studies permitting a determination of whether the media stimuli preceded an increase in suicide rates… and … few studies being able to demonstrate that a reasonable proportion of those who subsequently died by suicide were exposed to the media stimulus.’ Could you expand on the conclusion of causality, in the absence of temporality and specificity of evidence?
A: This is a question probably best answered by Jane Pirkis, the researcher, but I will do my best. The other three criteria for causality are readily satisfied in the literature and the studies (more recent ones) that did look at those two criteria suggested that the chronology of events was right and that there was exposure. It is also important to note that it is hard in these types of studies to look at that criteria - e.g. you cannot ask people who have died if they were exposed to the media source. I guess with the overwhelming evidence suggesting a link between the two, we all need to continue to proceed with caution.
Q: It is almost universally acknowledged that journalists should not discuss suicide method in their reports. Is there any exception to this rule, and any situation where it would be acceptable for a journalist to discuss the manner with which somebody killed themselves? For example, just mentioning the term "suicide bombers" implies a description of method.
A: There are times in which method may be important to a story and may be difficult for a journalist or editor to leave out. Having said that, we strongly advise either leaving out discussion of method or describing it in general terms only - e.g. he or she took a cocktail of medications rather than the specific medications. There is strong evidence that reporting of particular methods can lead to increases in those methods - e.g. in Hong Kong the reporting of one suicide death by charcoal burning in 2001 led to a massive increase in suicides by this method, and it remains a major concern in that country years later. The issue of suicide bombers is an interesting one and I have discussed this with journalists. Some media have decided to refer to suicide bombers once and then just refer to “bomber” to reduce the use of the word suicide, but it is something we have yet to get consensus on.
Q: How can we help foster a culture where people with mental health issues are portrayed in film and television as a ‘normal’ part of society, as opposed to the way they are currently often highlighted as abnormal or scary?
A: It is often very easy for the person with mental illness to be introduced as a guest character to create drama or conflict. Unfortunately, these representations can perpetuate common myths and stereotypes. Under our stage and screen project we have been working with scriptwriters and producers about representations of mental illness, to promote more use of ongoing characters as well portrayals that are more accurate and truthful. In workshops, we bring together people with direct experience of mental illness and scriptwriters and this has been reported to be very beneficial. We have seen good examples in recent years of ongoing characters exploring mental illness and it is something we would like to see more of.