Public Address - Hard News (Home)

The Suicide Question | Sep 01, 2010 10:51

This week's Media7 looks at an issue that has been percolating in the news media for months, and reaches a conclusion of sorts today: news media reporting of suicide.

Steven Price has examined the wording of the Coroner's Act, which forbids anyone to "make public any particular relating to the manner in which a death occurred," if there is cause to believe the death was self-inflicted -- and even where a coronial finding of suicide has been made, reporting should be limited to name, address and occupation of the deceased.

He writes in response to this Sunday Star Times column by James Hollings, which holds that the restrictions on reporting suicide are a matter of self-censorship.

The Press in Christchurch has published a series of stories calling for change on the banner Our Hidden Tragedy.

And, most significantly, the Chief Coroner, Judge Neil MacLean, recently called for a loosening of restrictions:

The Chief Coroner said responsible reporting on suicide could save lives.

"My personal view is that there's room for some gentle opening up of things ... but it probably requires legislative change to restore the balance, and that's a matter for a conscience vote in Parliament."

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne said he was "sympathetically disposed" to the Chief Coroner's comments.

"We need to take away the `mystery' of suicide without sensationalising or glorifying it," he said.

Newspaper Publishers' Association chief executive Tim Pankhurst said there had been a "shift in opinion" about the possible positive effects of reporting on suicide.

"There's starting to be a cautious recognition that the media actually can be part of the solution."

The Chief Coroner will join us a few hours after meeting the Media Freedom Committee of the Newspaper Publishers Association. We'll also have Rebecca Todd, the principal author of The Press's recent series.

There's clearly momentum for a change, but I think it warrants careful discussion first. Are we prepared to say that the social science that holds that prominent coverage of the details of deaths by suicide is creates its own risks is wrong?

Massey University PhD student Craig Colhoun, who is writing a doctoral thesis on reporting suicide, said more than 100 published articles have found that suicide media reports are associated with increases in subsequent suicide rates.

"It is believed that suicide contagion contributes to approximately 1% to 5% of all suicides, with some estimates as high as 13%," Colhoun said. "The important issue for me is not whether the press is given more freedom to talk about suicides, but rather how the suicide articles or reports are portrayed by the media to their audiences."

And do we trust news organisations in this fevered age to use any new freedoms responsibly? Even The Press has been guilty of suicide hysteria in the recent past.

It should be a good discussion. We'll also be looking at smoking on screen in the wake of the US Centre for Disease Control's call for an R rating on any movies that depict tobacco use. Prudent public health policy or social engineering?

If you'd like to join us for the recording, we'll need you at TVNZ by 5.30pm today. Come to the Victoria Street entrance, which is a gate leading to a courtyard. Hit Reply and let me know you're coming if you can.

---

Meanwhile, I enjoyed last week's show featuring media sage Harold Mitchell and former New Zealand Labour Party president Mike Williams on the Aussie election, and Denis Welch on the weekend newspaper market. You can watch that here.

---

I have some giveaways for you lovely people.

Firstly, to tomorrow night's LATE at the Museum, which focuses on innovation in Auckland. Finlay Macdonald is joined by architect Pete Bossley, urban historian Dr Chris Harris, who has written extensively on Auckland's transport system, and journalist Rod Oram. Music comes from flautist Miho Wada, the Drab Doo-Riffs, composer and producer Scratch 22 and Popstrangers.

And secondly, to the invite-only Metro Mayoral Super Quiz, in which Te Radar will chair quiz teams led by Len Brown and John Banks respectively. Mr David Slack also features. That's at Sale Street, Sunday, 6pm.

There are 10 double passes to each. Click "Reply" and email me with either "LATE" or "QUIZ" in the subject line. First in, first served.

(45 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

This is what we have to work with | Aug 31, 2010 11:13

A few minutes into last night's Campbell Live super city mayoral debate, I thought, "is this as good as it gets?" and I'm sure I wasn't alone. The only two candidates with a shot a winning, Len Brown and John Banks, lumbered through their opening spiels, lifting their respective strategists' clumsy slogans one by one from the big bag of clichés and dumping them down in front of the audience.

In fact, for Banks, the opening address probably was as good as it got. While Brown seemed uncomfortable and unfamiliar with his new attack lines, Banks was fairly crisp and spoke in sentences. It didn't really matter that he couldn't fill his allotted 60 seconds.

But from there, Auckland City's mayor lost his way; bragging about motorway building in response to a viewer question about public transport and lurching off into a lecture about CCOs as he tried to talk about inclusion and ethnic minorities. Brown, on the other hand, seemed to relax as he went on, occasionally offering glimpses of how he might really be as a person.

Which still isn't say that Brown performed particularly well. It's hard to escape the feeling that a composed and articulate candidate for this crucial elected post would win the mayoral vote at a canter. But there isn't one of those, and this is what we have to work with.

But the campaign itself has not been meaningless. Banks' steady shift to what would, on his own turf, have been centre-left positions on transport investment, water services and more indicate a reading of the electorate's feelings that will, should sentiments transform into votes, produce a civic culture that won't be what many of his supporters wanted.

Brown's job – and he tried plenty of it in the debate – is to cast doubt on Banks' various conversions; to ask whether the centre right's candidate will deliver on his fine words. Whether he'll even try.

It would, of course, have been easier for Brown to campaign on trust had he not frittered away so much trust in himself before the campaign even began. Even people who might have been inclined to look beyond Brown's inappropriate credit card spending – all reported to his chief executive, all paid back well before it became a story – found themselves uncomfortable with his response to the controversy. The guy who was going to get the default vote made voters question whether he was really up to the job.

And yet, despite all that, it will probably be an appeal to trust that drags Brown through. I can look past Banks' comic rat-a-tat and conclude that he must have some administrative competence, but I cannot summon any trust in a number of the people around him. We've had enough trouble at the hands of Act Party chancers on the national stage – why would we invite them in to our shiny new Super City?

For now, if you're confused, you have a right to be. When I drive past the hoardings crowding every public corner, I struggle to even tell who I'm voting for. Candidates are advertising well out of their wards and the rather odd Tenby Powell, standing for council in Waitemata and Gulf, seems to have his face everywhere. I'm sure the ballot forms will clear up some of that confusion. And not before time. It would be nice to think that this thing will get less weird as it reaches its conclusion.

(111 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!