Media reporting on child homicide victims: consultation analysis

Non-legislative options

Media toolkit

Question 7: To what extent do you agree that a media toolkit could support journalists and editors to report on child homicides in a trauma-informed way? Please give reasons for your answer

Of the 28 respondents that provided an answer to this question, a majority (16) either agreed or strongly agreed, 7 neither agreed or disagreed and 5 either disagreed or strongly disagreed that a media toolkit could support journalists and editors to report on child homicides in a trauma-informed way.

Support for a media toolkit came from across a range of respondent types, some respondents commented that a toolkit (or non-legislative guidance/code of conduct) for reporting on child victims on homicide would support journalists and aid their understanding of what is and is not appropriate to report and could better inform them about the impact their coverage can have on those bereaved.

“A reporting toolkit can give guidance which still respects the professionalism of reporters while supporting them to report in a sensitive way. A comprehensive toolkit coupled with strong guidance for journalists can support a nuanced approach to reporting which can balance privacy, safeguarding and issues of public interest.” – Scottish Association of Social Work

Some respondents highlighted examples of existing toolkits and guidance for the media on reporting of other sensitive issues including suicide and violence against women and girls.

In order to be useful and effective, many respondents suggested those with experience and expertise should be involved in the development of a media toolkit/guidance. Suggestions for who should be involved included: bereaved families, victim support organisations, criminal justice agencies, and journalists.

“IPSO is happy to support this process, but it is not for us as a regulator to set out what should or should not be included. We would recommend the government establishes which principles the toolkit should meet and seek input from victims’ families, police, subject matter experts and journalists on what they would consider helpful. We would be happy to support such a process.” – Independent Press Standards Organisation

However, one media organisation stressed that a media toolkit should not be the product of government “to be consistent with freedom of expression”. – Newbrands Scotland

The importance of “buy-in” from the media was emphasised by some respondents, with one noting that as well as individual journalists it would be important that the toolkit was also adopted by the senior leadership in media organisations:

“However, any such guidelines must also be accepted by editors and news editors, as individual journalists at a scene, and particularly early-career journalists, can face pressure to go beyond ethical boundaries while covering stories.” – National Union of Journalists

Furthermore, of those respondents that were in support of a media toolkit some did raise concerns about effectiveness and compliance due a lack of enforceability. Those respondents that did not support a media toolkit also commonly raised issues of enforceability.

Some victim support organisations raised that they did not think a media toolkit would alone be sufficient to address the issues experienced by bereaved families and that it should be underpinned by a legislative extension of anonymity.

“Whilst a toolkit could help provide some consistent and improved standards across coverage, there remains the risk that this may not be universally adhered to (ibid.).” – Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

“Anything to help a victims family, but this may have no teeth and could see the same issues arising again and again” – individual, bereaved family member or friend

One respondent suggested that it would be important to ensure that a toolkit did not only apply to traditional forms of media but also to online outlets and social media. Another suggested that a toolkit could have a positive influence on social media users.

The concerns noted above were also shared with many of those respondents that answered neutrally or did not answer the question but provided some additional comments.

Some respondents noted that a media toolkit might only have a positive impact on those who already report sensitively, and have no impact on those who do not.

“A media toolkit might be of assistance to ethical journalists and publishers who are concerned about boundaries. It seems unlikely, however, that it would make any difference to the conduct of unethical journalists in pursuit of “a scoop” or to those individuals who post on social media without any regard for the feelings of others.” – individual, legal professional

“While certainly worthy of discussion, the parameters of such a toolkit would likely mirror the regulation and self-regulation already in use by responsible media companies. Any less responsible publishing activity would likely ignore the toolkit anyway.” – STV Group PLC

Many responses from media organisations reiterated that they would require more information on the “content, authorship and status” of a media toolkit before they could give a view on it.

Of those respondents that did not support a media toolkit, in addition to enforceability, reasons included it would take too long to develop and it is not the place of the government to tell the media how to operate.

Question 8: What should such a toolkit cover?

27 respondents provided an answer to this question directly. Other respondents addressed this issue in comments made throughout their response.

There were key recurring themes in respect of the overall principles a media toolkit should cover. These were: it should be “victim-centred” and “trauma-informed” and should emphasise empathy, dignity, the privacy of those bereaved and the importance of factual reporting.

More specific suggestions of what should be covered in a toolkit, and how the overall principles/standards could be achieved, included guidance on:

• the language used – it should not be inflammatory or sensationalist
• the traumatic impact coverage can have on those who have been bereaved - this could include sharing people’s lived experience
• limiting the detail included – only necessary information should be covered
• how photos are included, including the importance of consulting the family on preferred photo choice and respecting that decision, not taking photos without permission from social media, and avoiding having victim/perpetrator photos side by side
• avoidance of the repetition of coverage at later dates, for example on anniversaries, or birthdays
• including content/trigger warnings for potentially distressing content

One respondent referred to UNICEF’s Guidelines for journalists reporting on children as a helpful example.

As covered elsewhere in this report, respondents were also asked to what extent they supported “No anonymity restrictions (i.e. the status quo) but with non-legislative actions, such as a media toolkit” and to what extent they thought this option was proportionate and enforceable. Further detail can be found at pages 19-20 and 51 respectively.

Other non-legislative options

Question 9: Are there other non-legislative means of improving how child homicides are reported and information published?

27 respondents provided an answer to this question directly.

Suggestions of other non-legislative means of improving how child homicides are reported on and information published included:

• a separate toolkit for those who have been bereaved to support them in navigating the media interest in, and coverage of, the case and provide information on their rights
• publicising the impact media coverage can have on those who have been bereaved with the sharing of lived experience:

“It would be worth continuing to publicise the negative impact of publicity and of particular kinds of reporting on the families of children who have been homicide victims. At least then those who report such things, whether as journalists or on social media, would be reminded of the harm they may do and, it is to be hoped, reassess what they were tempted to write originally.” – individual, legal professional

• more proactive and joint communication between justice agencies and families about what the media might report
• specialist media training on trauma-informed reporting
• strengthening the current system of press self-regulation
• improving the relationship between media and justice agencies:

“Improving relationships between journalists and legal officers – including the police, court officials and judges – would be a first step to improve the quality of reporting and protect the principles of open justice. In turn, this would support families of victims and communities directly affected by the trauma of bereavement.” – Independent Press Standards Organisation

• inclusion of additional clauses on how child homicides are reported in the IPSO Editor’s Code of Practice and National Union of Journalists Code of Conduct
• more robust tests to evaluate what is in the public interest
• collaboration between those affected by child homicide and those reporting it

Question 10: To what extent do you agree that the Scottish Government should work with the criminal justice agencies to explore non-legislative options to help reduce the trauma of reporting on bereaved families of child homicide victims? Please give reasons for your answer

Of the 28 respondents that provided an answer to this question, a majority (18) either agreed or strongly agreed, 5 neither agreed or disagreed and 5 either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the Scottish Government should work with the criminal justice agencies to explore non-legislative options to help reduce the trauma of reporting on bereaved families of child homicide victims.

Of those respondents that agreed that the Scottish Government should work with the criminal justice agencies to explore non-legislative options, some noted the benefits of collaborative working and bringing agencies together, that all options should be explored, and that this should be happening currently.

“We have heard from families bereaved by crime that they would also welcome greater, proactive communication between justice agencies and families about what the media might report (ibid.). Measures should be taken to ensure that sensitive information is reaching families directly, before it is announced in the media. Additionally, families should be proactively made aware of their rights surrounding media reporting.” – Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

“It is always better to gain agreement and work with professions in a consensual, collaborative way, legislative options should be a last resort where voluntary agreements have failed to produce a desired outcome… As well as trying to reduce the impact of reporting, full support should be given to families to help them cope at a very difficult time including support from police, victim support, social work and associated services. This will require investment in services to ensure they have both time and appropriate training to effectively support families bereaved through homicide.” - Scottish Association of Social Work

Some victim support organisations suggested that as an official source of information for the media, criminal justice agencies – including Police Scotland, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service – have a duty to ensure that only necessary information is released, that it is accurate, that it has been released with regard to the impact it may have on the bereaved family and has been shared with them first. Further suggestions included that official press releases could include guidance on respecting the family’s privacy.

Some media organisation respondents commented that the matter is “for the Scottish Government and the criminal justice agencies.”

Of those respondents that disagreed that the Scottish Government should work with the criminal justice agencies to explore non-legislative options, some commented that this was not the role of government, with one individual stating that it would be “a very undemocratic move.”

“We do not believe it is for government and the legal system to produce restrictions, statutory or otherwise, which will inevitably impact on freedom of expression or force change on existing non-statutory systems set up to ensure its defence There would be a high risk that rejection of government proposals would result in the introduction of statutory controls.” – Newsbrands Scotland