How do we cover “that” which must not be named?
Driven by public interest, media outlets frequently cover the topic of suicide. With every new detail or breaking update, there is a race to ensure the news cycle does not lag behind.
In recent days, the Georgian media landscape has been dominated by such a tragedy. The death of a 15-year-old adolescent has become the center of a national conversation involving the government, the opposition, civil society, the streets, schools, and social media feeds. Everyone who had even the slightest contact with the deceased is speaking out.
However, amidst the noise, a critical question arises: How does this saturation coverage affect other adolescents? For a teenager in the volatile transition of puberty, struggling to process such an event, the media narrative is crucial. How do we deliver information without triggering the “Werther effect”—without inciting, fueling, or presenting suicide as a viable option for those in a similar emotional state?
The Mandate for Caution: The Ethical Framework
The Guidelines of the Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics are clear and uncompromising.
“Research confirms that superficial coverage of individual cases can trigger new instances of suicide (copycat suicides). Conversely, careful, qualified coverage can actually reduce these numbers. Therefore, editorial boards must treat such information with extreme caution and constantly ask the question: Why are we covering this specific case?“
The Charter delineates two distinct approaches to coverage:
1. General/Systemic Coverage The focus here is on the broader problem. The goal is education and prevention.
- Helping society recognize the warning signs.
- Reporting on rising statistics provided by official agencies.
- Analyzing the root causes (social, economic, psychological).
2. Individual Coverage If a media outlet decides to report on a specific story, it must meet at least one of the following stringent criteria:
- There is a high public interest in the specific case (e.g., involving public officials, systemic failure, or crime).
- There is informed consent from the family or close relatives of the deceased.
The same strict criteria apply to the decision of whether to reveal the identity of the deceased.
The Danger of Romanticization
The Charter provides specific “Red Lines” on how to narrate these tragedies.
Journalists are explicitly warned to avoid emphasizing positive adjectives—describing the deceased as “young, beautiful, talented, or brilliant.” While true, this is dangerous territory, especially when covering adolescent suicide.
- The Risk: Adolescents often crave attention. If the media portrays suicide as a path to becoming a celebrated, tragic hero, it inadvertently validates the act.
- No Romanticism: Suicide must never be sensationalized. Presenting the suicide of a successful person as “baseless” or “inexplicable” can lead vulnerable individuals to believe that their lives will only be valued after they are gone.
- Not a Solution: Suicide must never be framed as a method of problem-solving.
Visuals and Verification: The Technical Standard
Beyond the narrative, the visual and structural presentation of the news is vital.
- Headlines: Editors must be meticulous. The use of the word “Suicide” in the headline itself should be avoided to prevent sensationalism.
- Imagery: Do not publish photos of the deceased. This reduces the “celebrity factor” and romanticization of the tragedy.
- Source Verification: One of the most important rules is vetting respondents. In the wake of a tragedy, individuals often appear claiming to be “close friends” or relatives simply to get on camera. Journalists must verify that the respondent actually knew the deceased to prevent the spread of rumors.
The Ripple Effect: A Real Danger
We consciously omit the specifics of similar tragic events that have occurred in the last 48 hours. However, it is difficult to ignore the timing. Did these subsequent tragedies occur in the vacuum, or were they influenced by the relentless, high-decibel coverage of 15-year-old Luka’s death? The timeline suggests the danger is real.
Dispelling the Myths: A Guide for the Public
The media has a role not just in reporting news, but in dismantling dangerous stereotypes. The Charter highlights key myths vs. facts:
- Myth: “Talking about suicide encourages suicide.”
- Fact: If you fear someone is prone to suicide, you must talk to them. Providing information and offering paths to help is prevention, not encouragement. Recognizing the signs saves lives.
- Myth: “People who talk about suicide won’t actually do it.”
- Fact: People who take their own lives often give verbal cues or speak about “life not being worth it” beforehand. These are cries for help, not idle threats.
- The Survivor’s Truth: Research shows that most people who have survived suicide attempts admit that they did not want to end their life—they simply wanted to change their life and saw no other way out.
The media’s responsibility is heavy. In the space between silence and sensationalism lies the path of ethical journalism—where the goal is to inform without harm.
