Comments for Media Law Journal

Comment on Killing the messenger by Steven

Steven — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:52:38 +0000

That article says that the “biggest risk” is where the method is portrayed. It doesn’t say there’s no significant risk where it’s not. I agree that any restrictions on reporting such an important issue must be convincingly justified, and that looking at the evidence must be the first port of call. But I think glib statements about “sweeping the issue under the carpet” (which our law doesn’t do, since it allows general discussions on suicide) don’t help matters much.

Comment on Killing the messenger by ross

ross — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:44:28 +0000

This article suggests that there is evidence that when the method of suicide is mentioned, the risk of copycat suicide is increased. The Samaritans argue that there is nothing wrong with honest reporting as long as suicide is not romanticised or glamourised. But sweeping the issue under the carpet is not the way to go.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-big-question-should-the-media-stop-reporting-the-suicides-in-and-around-bridgend-785551.html

Comment on Killing the messenger by Steven

Steven — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 06:59:04 +0000

A contradiction? Read it more carefully. I know two things. One: there is lots of evidence that reporting of suicide leads to copycat suicides. (There’s also social science evidence that questions those findings). Two: I don’t know what that evidence says about whether the copycat effect still applies when the fact of suicide is reported but not the method.

Comment on Killing the messenger by ross

ross — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 06:02:10 +0000

Steven,

You say that you “don’t know what the social science evidence says about copycat suicides where it’s only the fact of the suicide that’s reported and not the method”. Then you say there’s plenty of evidence that non-reporting of suicide prevents copycat suicides. That’s surely a contradiction.

For what it’s worth, I would like to see the media reporting on suicides honestly and openly without hiding behind silly euphemisms. Might it lead to copycat suicides? Possibly but it might also lead to fewer suicides. As long as the media don’t glamorise suicide - and I’d like to think the media would take its responsibilites seriously on this matter - I’m all in favour of open and honest reporting. I note that the Samaritans deal with people who are or may be suicidal. One of the questions they ask of callers is: “Do you feel suicidal?” I think that’s an important question.

Comment on Killing the messenger by Steven

Steven — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:28:34 +0000

>> Would a media outlet come under the defintion of “person”?

Yes, Ross, they would. And it seems likely that non-reporting this particular fact is exactly what that provision is aimed at, in order to prevent copycat suicides, which there’s plenty of evidence of.

Comment on Killing the messenger by ross

ross — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:52:09 +0000

The media also report that there were “no suspicious circumstances” surrounding a death. That is also code for suicide. Is that against the law? I wouldn’t have thought so - the alternative would be non-reporting. The law says that “No person may…make public any particular relating to the manner in which a death occurred…”. Would a media outlet come under the defintion of “person”?

Comment on FOIled by ross

ross — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:42:24 +0000

I suspect Ministers have always flouted the OIA and always will, probably because they know the Office of the Ombudsmen has no teeth. I’ve lost count of the number of times the Justice Ministry has responded to me outside the 20 working day limit. Complaints to the Ombudsman fall on deaf ears.

Comment on FOIled by ryan

ryan — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:56:48 +0000

Minister Paula Bennett is a serial OIA offender - after a while you begin to feel sorry for her in many respects. With her its incompetence more than anything else. I listen to her on the radio and it brings back memories of time I spent working on the psychiatric wards and talking to patients who had schizophasia: mixture of randomly chosen words that, while arranged in phrases that appear to give them meaning, actually carry no significance.

Comment on Killing the messenger by James

James — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:38:23 +0000

Do media use the catchphrase only for suicide or do they use it in connection with deaths that are considered accidental at the time of reporting?
Hollins article is certainly food for thought especially the excerpt “If I had had to ask permission every time, without any solid facts to go on would the coroner have been always helpful”. The publishing of articles alleging negligence leading to death without solid facts is concerning, as is the alternative of such matters being swept under the carpet without scrutiny.
Good on Hollins for asking the tough questions although I’m still very uncertain. The validity of research suggesting that suicide reporting increases suicide occurrence seems one key factor in whether this restriction is demonstrably justified. Getting the balance right in laying down a general rule in such a delicate area would be very tough. A case-by-case assessment seems to be the only other way. Is the Coroner the right person to be making this assessment?

Comment on Off-Target by Steven

Steven — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:56:53 +0000

James: yes, contractors do have an expectation of privacy, which was upheld by the BSA in O’Connell, another Target case: http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2007/2007-067.htm

There can also be fairness issues, as that case also demonstrates.

Privacy rights won’t help the contractor if the hidden camera reveals something of public interest, though it will need to be something more than the fairly trivial lapses by the care workers caught on tape in O’Connell. The broadcaster can also choose to pixilate, or to get consent.