The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article headed “Never Let Despair Win” in the Parramatta Advertiser in print on 14 September 2016.
The article concerned the suicide of a 62-year-old man whose body was found two weeks after being reported missing. The article named the man, included a photograph of him, and noted that he had first experienced depression at 28. The article was based mainly on the man’s sister’s perceptions of his response to a marriage breakdown and her support for him since that time. It referred to the geographical region where the man’s body was found and where he had lived. It referred to his sister’s desire to raise awareness of depression and the social stigma associated with it, that “[p]eople with depression need to keep trying to find someone who can understand them” because “[t]hey are out there”, and that people ought realise that “[t]he carnage suicide leaves behind is wrenching, it pulls everyone apart”.
The complainant, the man’s estranged wife, said the article appeared three weeks after the funeral. She said the publication should have contacted the man’s two sons—because in her view they were closer to him than his sister—before publication and sought informed consent. As the younger of the sons was still under 18 and she was his legal guardian, the complainant should have been contacted on his behalf. She noted that in the period after they became estranged the man’s sister had not lived with the man, though his elder son had for some time and the man had lived with the complainant for a number of weeks after a period in hospital.
The complainant also said there was no reason to include the region where the man’s body was found, as it was not required for the story. Also, when the man first had depression it was not something he had chosen to reveal.
The complainant also said that after the man went missing, the publication had contacted her elder son with two Facebook messages on one day to request an interview with him for a longer story about the man’s disappearance but her son, who was understandably distressed, had not responded at all. The complainant said after the article appeared, she contacted the publication to ask if they had obtained her elder son’s permission and was informed they had asked for permission by Facebook message. Her son indicated that neither the publication nor the man’s sister had contacted him to advise that the article, for which he did not give permission, would be published.
The publication said the story had been prepared at the suggestion of the man’s sister. It came about because she wanted to share both her brother's story and her own as a warning to others.
The publication said the man was close to his sister, he confided in her about his depression and spoke with her daily by phone. It said she had filed the missing person's report, was the first person contacted by police after he was found and organised his funeral. The man had been estranged from the complainant for four years. Given these factors, the publication said the consent of the man’s sister was informed and sufficient. The publication said even if insufficient, the issue was important for public health and safety and as such, the article was justified in the public interest. It was an honest and accurate portrayal of the circumstances which highlighted the warning signs and the need to be alert. The newspaper noted that ABS statistics indicated Australia’s suicide rate had reached a 10-year high and the Prime Minister had encouraged discussion about mental health and suicide to encourage people to seek help.
The publication said the article was not given undue prominence, the headlines were appropriate and the photograph of the man was much smaller than that of his sister. It said the article itself was not sensational and avoided specific details such as the names of the man’s sons and estranged wife.
It also said that after the man was reported missing, and following public statements by police calling for assistance in the search for him, it approached the man’s elder son to see if he would be willing to speak to a journalist. The second Facebook message was sent without knowing the first had been sent and when the journalist received no response, it was reasonable for it to assume the elder son did not wish to speak to media or be contacted, and so it did not seek to do so.
Conclusion
The Council’s Standards of Practice require that publications take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person's reasonable expectations of privacy interest (General Principle 5) or causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety (General Principle 6)—unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
In addition, Specific Standards on the Coverage of Suicide 3 and 4 require that in deciding whether to report a suicide and name of the person who has died by suicide, consideration should be given to whether clear and informed consent has been provided by appropriate relatives or close friends and whether such reporting is clearly in the public interest. Further, Suicide Standard 7 requires that reports of suicide should not be given undue prominence and great care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary harm or hurt to people who have been affected by suicide, which requires special sensitivity and moderation in both news gathering and reporting.
The Council acknowledges the article was well-intentioned and initiated by the man’s sister, who provided informed consent. However, the publication was aware the man had two children, one an adult living with him for a period and one under 18 living with the complainant.
Given the article used the man’s name and photograph, reported the regions where he lived and was found, and dealt with his possible reasons for suiciding, the effects on his family and what the sister claims might have happened had she not assisted him, the Council considers that it was not sufficient to have consent only from the man’s sister.
The publication should have sought consent, and invited comment from, his adult son and from the complainant as his wife (albeit estranged) and guardian of his younger son. Had the article neither identified the man nor included a photograph of him and had it been of a more general nature, such consent would not have been necessary.
The Council recognises there can be substantial public benefit in reporting and commenting on suicide.
The article highlighted some important issues. However, in the absence of consent from his elder son and the complainant, the public interest did not justify use of the man’s name, photograph, geographical region or possible reasons for suicide, the effects on his family and what the sister claims might have happened had she not assisted him.
Accordingly, the Council upholds the complaint in relation to General Principles 5 and 6 and Suicide Standards 3 and 4.
As to Suicide Standard 7, the Council considers the article was not given undue prominence nor was it unnecessarily explicit in its use of headlines or images. The Council considers that the publication should have sought to avoid hurt to the sons of the man by seeking consent and inviting comment before publication from his elder son and from the complainant. The Council considers the publication did not take sufficient care in this regard and accordingly, breached Suicide Standard 7.
Note: If you or someone close to you requires personal assistance, please contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.
Relevant Council Standards
This adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.
Publications must take reasonable steps to:
General Principle 5 - Avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
General Principle 6 - Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
This adjudication also applies the following Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide.
Specific Standard 3 - In deciding whether to report an individual instance of suicide, consideration should be given to whether at least one of the following criteria is satisfied:
(a) clear and informed consent has been provided by appropriate relatives or close friends; or
(b) reporting the death as suicide is clearly in the public interest.
Specific Standard 4 - In deciding whether also to report the identity of the person who has died by suicide, account should be taken of whether at least one of the following criteria is satisfied:
(a) clear and informed consent has been provided by appropriate relatives or close friends; or
(b) identification is clearly in the public interest.
Specific Standard 7 - Reports of suicide should not be given undue prominence, especially by unnecessarily explicit headlines or images. Great care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary harm or hurt to people who have attempted suicide or to relatives and other people who have been affected by a suicide or attempted suicide. This requires special sensitivity and moderation in both gathering and reporting news.