Reporting of Suicide in the Australian Media

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The media monitoring project aimed to establish a baseline picture of the extent, nature and quality of reporting of suicide by the Australian media, with a view to informing future strategies intended to optimize reporting of suicide. METHOD: Newspaper, television and radio items on suicide were retrieved over 12 months. Identifying and descriptive information were extracted for each item. Approximately 10% of items were rated for quality, using a rating scale based on criteria from Achieving the Balance, a kit designed to promote awareness among media professionals of issues relating to suicide. The scale ranged from 0 (poor quality) to 100 (good quality). RESULTS: Reporting of suicide was extensive (with 4813 items retrieved). The nature of reporting was variable. Items tended to be about completed suicide (rather than attempted suicide or suicidal ideation), and most commonly involved content related to an individual's experiences, policy/programme initiatives and/or suicide statistics, although there were differences across media types. Items showed variability across dimensions of quality. The majority of suicide items did not have examples of inappropriate language, were not inappropriately located, did not use the word 'suicide' in the headline, and did not use explicit photographs/diagrams or footage. However, around half of the suicide items provided a detailed discussion of the method of self-harm and portrayed suicide as merely a social phenomenon. Where items concerned the suicide of a celebrity, reference was commonly made to that person's celebrity status. Most items failed to provide information on help services. The median total quality score was 57.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of suicide is extensive across all media types, and varies in nature and quality. In general, good items outnumber poorer items. However, there are still opportunities for improving media reporting of suicide.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 70 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.