SARAH LEE: So I'd like to invite Paul Thompson up.
Now, Paul is the Group Executive Editor for Fairfax New Zealand,
and he's going to be talking today about Challenging the Taboo:
Reporting Suicide Effectively. Welcome, Paul.
PAUL THOMPSON: Good morning, everyone.
It's really good to be here. I've enjoyed the day so far.
Even the Minister's speech.
And I particularly enjoyed Jane's very powerful presentation.
in which she summarised the state of play in terms of
our understanding of the copycat effect and the impact of all sorts of media coverage of suicide
on real people's lives, and if there is one key step that I think
I'd like to do with the editors I work with is to get Jane in front of them.
Just might explain what my job is - I'm a former reporter, former journalist, in the trenches
former health reporter. I've covered quite a bit of suicide as a reporter in my time.
Then I went on to become a newspaper editor. And in my current role, I'm editor-in-chief of Fairfax.
All the editors in our group report to me on editorial matters,
but they also have editorial independence in the way we structure our company.
So I'm there to support, guide them, help them develop their publications, make sure we do it right,
but they have a large degree of autonomy in the news decisions they make.
And it has to be that way because they know their readership, they know their newsrooms better than anyone.
So, just gives you a bit of context in terms of what I do in my job.
As I said, thank you for the opportunity to speak today and to provide
what I hope will be some constructive comments about the media's role
in reporting suicide in an accurate, balanced, and above all, responsible manner.
And by responsible, I don't just mean it in a manner that makes sure
that reporting doesn't cause inadvertent harm.
I also mean in a manner that is responsible in terms of our duties as journalists
and that we keep doing our job which is such an important one in our society.
I'm just wondering whether I'm among friends.
How many working journalists are in the room?
That's fantastic.
How many students journalists? That's good to see.
I thought I'd start by trying to provide an insight for those others in the room
into what motivates us to get so fired up and stroppy about the coverage of suicide.
It does go to that, I think, at times.
First, it's not because we're ghouls or that we take any pleasure at all
in uncovering such tragic and traumatic events.
In my experience, nothing can be further from our minds.
And I know how hard it is on individual journalists to do some of these stories.
Nor is it because we feel compelled to challenge New Zealand's
highly restrictive regime around the reporting of suicide,
which, as we know, is the most restrictive in the world.
That certainly is a factor for us, but it's not what drives us.
Instead, I think there are two other key things at work.
First, and quite simply, we are motivated by a commitment to report
important news that we believe our readers need to know and to understand.
I think it's really easy, and probably it's getting easier unfortunately,
to be cynical about journalism and journalists these days.
And we certainly dish out the criticism and we need to be able to take it.
But the truth is that for all our faults, we do sincerely believe we have a duty
to tell it like it is even when you don't want to hear it;
even when our job involves challenging a taboo,
and perhaps particularly when it comes to challenging a taboo.
Second, and this is probably the point I want to emphasise more,
for most of us, as journalists, our views on reporting suicide are often shaped by personal experience.
For example, I once worked with a news editor in our regional newspaper
who was adamant that we needed to cover suicide as a major social ill in our community.
Reporting needed to be robust, it needed to be direct and clear.
We needed to call a spade a spade.
News editors, for those of you who don't know, are the gods of the newsrooms.
They decide which stories go in the paper, where they go, and what prominence they are given.
And this former colleague of mine was a passionate advocate
for this sort of vigorous reporting of self-inflicted deaths.
I worked with him for a year or more before I learned that his father had taken his life
and that really was what motivated this chap to be so vehement in his views.
And it certainly helped me as editor to sort of understand some of the dynamics in the room
and what was happening in the paper, but it also underlined the point I'm trying to make that
we're affected by this issue as well. We're not apart from society.
We're part of society. Any problem that's affecting society does affect us on a personal level.
But there's another way in which it affects us, and that is many of us have had extremely difficult experiences
writing heart-wrenching stories about suicide, dealing with the privacy issues, dealing with deadline issues,
the demand of the editors, the demands of the readers.
The fear that is in the taboos that surround the subject.
One example I'll give from my our experience as a health reporter is a series of stories I wrote
about an HIV-positive caregiver in the community.
He took his life after allegations of child abuse were levelled against him.
I can't think of a worse mix of factors. It was terrible. It was significant news because
there was a police investigation underway. There were serious issues, questions around
what had happened and how his employer had managed things
and the impact on the child.
And I vividly recall wrestling with the story and feeling sick about it,
and I recall most of all receiving a phone call from the dead man's grief-stricken father.
And it's probably the most difficult call I've ever taken
because I simply couldn't do anything and I had to listen. It was just tragic.
In a more positive way, some of us as journalists are lucky enough to have
constructive experiences when covering this really difficult issue.
And I don't mean that it was pleasant, but that we probably feel we got it right and made it a contribution.
And a couple of years ago when I was editor of The Press in Christchurch
we noticed that there were, I think, 14 self-inflicted deaths on the coroner's list for the next day
and we worked with Richard McElrea, the coroner, to see whether he would allow us
to report more details of those and we would usually be allowed to.
He liaised with the families and I think one or two of the families didn't want to be a part of that,
but most were cooperative. We played it in a very straight manner.
We called the series "The Hidden Toll". We carefully explained the context of what we were doing.
We talked about this being, it was about mental illness, it was about depression, it was about alcohol and drug abuse,
and those factors were clearly seen in the testimony in the coroner's court
and it was challenging reporting. We got some strong feedback - positive and negative - about it,
but I think it was a good example of us doing our job as we need to. I don't expect all of you to agree on that,
but I think it was, as I say, a good example of how perhaps it can be done in a cooperative way with coroners and families.
It's not something you want to do every week;
it's not something you need to go overboard on, but occasionally those opportunities are there,
and the point I'm making is that journalists' views on suicide are shaped by such experiences as this,
as well as by our professional and ethical duties.
The topic of my talk today is "Challenging the Taboo: Reporting Suicide Effectively".
And I think the key challenge I have is to explain what reporting the issue effectively actually means
and to provide both an industry perspective and a personal view on that question.
First, some background: coverage of suicide is one of the most challenging areas
any editor or journalist in New Zealand faces.
A death toll of 500 will always be significant news.
Making sense of that in an appropriate way isn't easy.
Our reporting is constrained by law, it's constrained by social convention and by public taste.
it's further clouded by issues of personal grief
and intrusions of privacy. Another complication is the ongoing battle,
perhaps too strong word, but it has been quite tense at times, with health professionals and suicide prevention researchers
about the effects, positive and negative. that arise when suicide are covered in a particular manner.
And obviously the need for New Zealand research is evident to us all
and I understand that's underway which is positive and I look forward to reading that.
But I think as I mentioned in my opening comments
getting editors and journalists to understand what the research actually means and getting their heads across that is probably the
biggest goal that we need to throw at ourselves and make sure it happens.
I think you can throw into this mix the fact that some journalists are ignorant of what they can and cannot do.
They are fearful when it comes to this topic, and it's easy to see why. It's a potential minefield.
What is surprising is that, as others have said today, most coverage of suicide
in New Zealand is responsible, it's accurate, it's balanced and it's kept in perspective.
We do generally take a moderate approach.
We do manage to balance freedom of expression and our duties as journalists
with those constraints that I mentioned before.
To give a couple of quick examples, would you see coverage like this in New Zealand?
"He danced for the PM, then stabbed a woman 14 times and hanged himself". Front page, SMH.
Or this story and the level of detail it gave on a prominent politician's attempt on their life.
So whilst we have certain pressure points and issues that we certainly are wrestling,
we generally do get it right.
Indeed, in the past 5 years or so, I think we've improved our performance in this area a lot more
as researchers, health professionals and agencies involved in suicide
have worked more cooperatively and respectfully with us
and we've done the same with them, which is fantastic.
I believe a consensus of sorts has been formed. One that is fluid and still evolving
but which has nevertheless created common ground that we can all operate on, and I think
the consensus runs something like this. Firstly, we accept the media has
the right and the responsibility to cover this major health problem.
Second, but we must do it in a responsible manner and we must be informed
and again going back to that. We need to know what the research says
not simply what we think it should say.
It's better for us all to work together respectfully and professionally to ensure
our understanding and handling of this complex issue continues to improve.
And lastly, there are some simple things that we can do as media outlets
to ensure that our coverage does not create inadvertent harm.
I think it's important at this point to say that I, to point out, that I'm not saying everything is perfect
or rosy. This is really tricky terrain and while progress has been made,
pressure points remain and we need to be honest about those.
A good example of that would be some of the criticism that I heard this morning
around the Sunday News story at the weekend.
I've also heard some journalists in commenting on this story
and making the point that, "Well, we can do what we like! It was an attempted suicide,
"therefore, it's not covered by the Act." I think that misses the point.
and perhaps what we need to do with our guidelines and with our protocols
is to emphasise that it's not just about suicide when someone actually dies,
it's also about the wider issues where people try to take their life but survive.
There may be some questions later on today about the Sunday News.
I thought it would be quite good to take you quickly through the factors
that influence the kind of decisions that journalists make,
what's going through an editor's mind when faced with a story about suicide
and the prospect of challenging the taboo.
So partly or largely, it's about news judgment.
And these are the simple criteria we like to use.
Is it new? Is it interesting?
Is it important, does it have a strong human factor?
Does it affect real people? What will the impact be? And how do we tell the whole story?
So those are the sorts of things that are going through editors' minds when perhaps
they're faced with any story including a story on a self-inflicted death.
Then they'll probably turn to the Coroner's Act
which is a restrictive regime as we know. I'll read a little bit of it out.
"No person may, without a coroner's authority, make public any particular
"relating to the manner of death... the manner in which a death occurred, if:
"the death occurred in New Zealand after the commencement of this section and
"there is reasonable cause to believe the death was self-inflicted
"and no inquiry into the death has been completed.
"The only grounds on which a coroner may under this section
"authorise the making public of particulars of the death
"of that kind is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety."
So the editor at this point may look at his news judgment, weighing up whether there's a story here.
Is it new? Is it important? Do our readers need to know this?
What does the Coroners Act says at this point?
They'll probably get their editors, their lawyers in, perhaps,
to have a look at it and get some legal advice.
And then they'll hopefully turn to our protocols
which have been developed by the Commonwealth Press Union Freedom Committee meeting,
committee, Press Freedom Committee sorry,
and Fairfax Media has adopted these protocols and our editors are guided by them.
Just read out a part of it.
"Individual suicides may be inherently newsworthy and need to be reported.
"In such cases, a responsible approach will consider the potential for news coverage
"to both contribute to cause further harm and to communicate
"positive messages that may save lives."
It also talks about avoiding presenting suicide as a method of coping with personal problems,
avoiding focusing only on the deceased person's positive characteristics,
avoid language or images, or presentations that glorifies, trivialises, or romanticises.
Where appropriate, include community resources available for those at risk.
I won't read them all but I think they are a good starting point in terms of effective guidelines,
they do need to continue to evolve, though.
So editors will be weighing up all those factors, making decisions,
and some editors will make different decisions from other editors.
If you look at the coverage of the Tony Veitch story over the weekend.
Which papers and news outlets picked it up, which didn't?
That does underline that point that editors are autonomous.
They'll work within these guidelines, within the Act
their own news judgment and make their own decisions.
Another story featuring Sunday News is probably worth flicking up.
A good example of something which definitely has some news value.
But which, again, was played out with a lot of prominence.
Certainly some significant issues there both of the public policy kind
and also some real grief with some individuals concerned.
I would say that this story is not typical in terms of how
newspapers tend to cover these matters now.
Just want to end by talking about my approach when I was in the editor's chair.
Firstly, I did not like the fact that we used that code to confuse readers, I think,
and create even more of a taboo around suicide when there was a suspected self-inflicted death
and rather than saying that it was a "suspected suicide"
we used the code of: the body's been found, no suspicious circumstances.
The matter has been referred to the coroner.
I thought that that was a mistake for us to do that, and that there was no need for us to do that,
and that we should, if it is a suspected suicide, and it's news worthy,
we should call it that and that's appropriate to do so.
I think the second thing I tried to do is work with the Coroner where appropriate
choose your moments and see whether you can do it
in a collaborative way, including the families.
Be really careful around placement, headlines, detail, repetition, prominence.
Provide as much context as we can around the fact that mental illness, depression,
substance abuse, are the key driving factors.
That people don't just wake up happy one day, sad the next, and do something drastic.
There is a context we need to explain.
Link readers really well into the support systems, and always provide balance and context
and not think that this is something we need to necessarily crusade on all the time.
To end my talk, I want to go back to the title of the presentation,
"Challenging the Taboos - Reporting Suicide Effectively"
So what should that mean? I'll just try to wrap things up.
Effective reporting is not timid or oblique.
It should be strong, clear, direct, and founded on thorough reporting.
Effective reporting needs to engage with the reader and be relevant
and needs a strong element of human interest, but it should not exploit vulnerable privacies,
trade on their grief, or intrude unnecessary on their privacy.
Effective reporting needs to keep issues in perspective and provide a wider view.
It should avoid exaggeration or generalisation, and it should inform people without causing unnecessary harm.
These are difficult matters for anyone to weigh up.
We still are learning, and growing in this area.
But I'd be delighted to work with SPINZ and others in this room
to keep working along this path and happy to take your questions later.
Thank you.
[applause]