Towson
Media Ethics
Ethics case study
November 2005

Suicide is clearly one of the most difficult subjects for a journalist to cover. In its guidebook, the Radio & Television News Directors Foundation said “stories about suicide can inform readers and viewers about the likely causes of suicide, its warning signs, trends in suicide rates, and recent treatment advances. They can also highlight opportunities to prevent suicide” (Newsroom Ethics).

But journalists must be aware of the dangers inherent in coverage of suicide. A study published in the Sept. 11, 1986 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine asserted, based on six years of data, that “television stories about suicide trigger additional suicides, perhaps because of imitation” (Phillips, Carstensen). The evidence has piled up for decades. A 2003 paper said “there is ample evidence from the literature on suicide clusters and the impact of the media to support the contention that suicide is ‘contagious’” (Gould, Jamieson, and Romer).

Knowing this, how should journalists approach the sensitive subject of suicide when it occurs? This question is an important one to answer, especially when a suicide achieves “prominence” because of its public nature or the popular figure involved.

The Free Lance-Star dedicated most of its front page on Saturday, April 27, 2002 to the news of a woman’s suicide leap from an Interstate 95 bridge. The incident tied up traffic for hours along a major north-south highway, and presumably led local newscasts. The cover of the newspaper included three photos: one of a police officer approaching the woman, one of the woman looking down to the water, and one of the woman beginning to fall from the bridge. On the inside were three more photos: one of the bridge, one of rescuers in a boat under the bridge, and one of rescuers carrying the woman out of the water. She died a short time later at a local hospital.

The photos seem to be the reason why the story received such extensive play on page one of the newspaper. If the woman had walked onto the bridge and jumped immediately, a photographer would not have captured the dramatic scene. The story may have still been cover-worthy, but it wouldn’t have been emphasized to the extent it was. The Free Lance-Star had two photographers at the bridge: One at the height of the bridge, and one near the river below.

An editor’s note on the inside of the newspaper explained the newspaper’s decision to run the photos. “Perhaps these images will stir a renewed dialogue in our community about suicide, the toll it exacts on families and how we can help those who are in pain,” it said (Pugh). I am not convinced that running the images will “stir a renewed dialogue.” The photos entice readers to pick up the paper and show them what happened on the bridge, but they won’t explain “how we can help those who are in pain.” I believe the newspaper should do this by printing follow-up stories on the subject, using this incident as a catalyst for additional reporting about suicide. Perhaps the newspaper should have been more upfront with its readers: “We decided to print the photos so that you could see what happened for yourself.” I understand the need to hide behind the “renewed dialogue” statement, but I think it’s misleading. Make the “renewed dialogue” happen, don’t just hope for it.

Also, the newspaper should have been more careful in its wording of certain paragraphs in the story. “Myers cried, rocked back and told Dunham that she split with her husband about a month ago,” the story said, citing a police official. While this may be true, the recommendations published by the R&TNDF notes that “the cause of an individual suicide is invariably more complicated than a recent painful event such as the break-up of a relationship or the loss of a job.” The story infers that the woman climbed up to the ledge and jumped because of her divorce. It seems inappropriate to suggest that without adequate supporting evidence.

Television broadcasters must also face difficult questions as they cover suicides and suicide attempts. In the summer of 2001, KHOU-TV in Houston reported on a suicide attempt on a local interstate. After an hour of talking, the man calmed down and stepped off the overpass ledge. The KHOU reporter caught up with the officer who talked the man down, and filed a report focusing on the fact that the officer was recently ordained as a minister, and planned to leave the force to focus on her ministry. The report included video of the incident, with close-ups of the man on the ledge. He was not named and his background was not described in detail. This report was well-done. It presented an unusual angle of the story. But by focusing on the officer, rather than the man who considered suicide, it passed up an opportunity to pass along information to the community about suicide.

Based on utilitarianism, these reports about suicide are ethical. In their media textbook, Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins state that, “in the utilitarian view, it may be considered ethical to harm one person for the benefit of the larger group” (Patterson, Wilkins). The goal of utilitarianism is to maximize the goodness in society, by doing what is the greatest good for the great number. The harm caused to the victims and their family members is outweighed by the need to inform the public of the incidents and present reporting on the issue of suicide.

While the two pieces of journalism described above were ethical, because they presented important news to a large audience, they ignored an opportunity to provide valuable context about suicide. Neither piece discussed the reasons behind the suicide attempts. Neither piece talked about myths of suicide, warning signs of suicide, or actions that individuals can take to prevent suicide by others. These are some of the stories that could be covered by news organizations, the R&TNDF said. Other stories to consider include “trends in suicide rates, recent treatment advances, individual stories of how treatment was life-saving, [and] stories of people who overcame despair without attempting suicide.” By expanding the scope of the subject beyond one isolated incident, journalists have the opportunity to perform a public service – one that just might save a life.